AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Rae T. Benedict for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Health
Management presented on June 10. 2003.
Title: Evaluating Oregon's Beach Sites and Assessing Twenty-Six Coastal Beach Areas for Recreational Water quality Standards. Redacted for privacy
Abstract approved: Catherine M. Neumann
With congressional passage of the BEACH Act in October of 2000, Coastal and
Great Lakes states were mandated to assess coastal recreation waters for the application of ambient water quality standards. This research encompasses two components involved in applying the BEACH Act statues to Oregon. The first component was to select beach sites in Oregon. The second component involves applying bacterial recreational water standards to select Oregon beaches. Using the guidelines provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this study develops a method to appraise Oregon marine recreational waters taking into account the following factors: use, available information, pollution threats, sanitary surveys, monitoring data, exposure considerations, economics, and development. In an effort to protect the public from swimming-associated illness attributable to microbial pollution, 24 beaches were identified in Oregon. Of these, 19 beaches were classified as tier 1, or high priority, and five sites were classifiedas medium priority, or tier 2. Future studies should be directed at ascertaining the beach lengths utilized by Oregon marine recreators since this is an important parameter in targeting bacterial monitoring. Ongoing monitoring of these 24 sites is warranted and new information could be used to update beach tier levels in Oregon.
In the second phase of this study, bacterial monitoring data was used for comparison to recreational water quality standards. In October of 2002, the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) sampled 26 beaches for enterococci andEscherichia coli (E. coli)densities. Of the water sampled from all 26 beach sites, nine exceeded s single sample maximum density of 104 enterococci colony forming units (cfu) per 100 milliLiters (mL). The Oregon beach with the highest exceedance occurred at Otter Rock's South Cove where the enterococci concentration was 4352 most probable number (MPN)/100 mL. A comparison of the
26 sampled beaches to ODEQ's estuarineE. colistandard of 406 organisms/100 mL resulted in two beaches with exceedances. Otter Rock at South Cove had the highest
E. coliconcentration at 1850 IVIPN/100 mL. Based on the limited data used in this study, should Oregon adopt the enterococci standard in lieu of the current ODEQ estuarineE. colistandard, more beaches will have exceedances of the recreational water standard. Additional bacterial monitoring is warranted to further characterize the nature and extent of the problem in Oregon. To protect the health of the marine recreating public, future Oregon marine water quality studies should delineate the
"no swim" zone around creeks and model the impacts of rainfall on beach sites. © Copyright by Rae T. Benedict
June 10, 2003
All Rights Reserved Evaluating Oregon's Beach Sites and Assessing Twenty-Six Coastal Beach Areas for Recreational Water Quality Standards
by Rae T. Benedict
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Presented June 10, 2003 Commencement June 2004 Master of Science thesis of Rae T. Benedict presented on June 10, 2003.
APPROVED: Redacted for privacy
Major Professor, representing Environmental Health Management Redacted for privacy
Chair of the Department of Public
Redacted for privacy
Dean of the d'ttat'e School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request.
Redacted for privacy
Rae T. Benedict, Author ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author expresses sincere appreciation to the Department of Environmental
Quality, Water Quality Section, as well as, the Oregon Department of Human
Services, Environmental Services and Consultation Section.
Special thanks to Who provided
Dr Catherine Neumann, Oregon State Univ Applied research
Mark Meyers, Oregon State Univ ArcView assistance
Tanya Haddad, Oregon Land Conservation and Dev ArcView assistance
Larry Caton, Oregon DEQ Ongoing data
Oregon Department of Recreation Coastal Managers Information
Kamie Carney, Florida Dept of Health State criteria
Dana Solum, Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services State criteria
Lynn Schneider, Washington State Dept of Ecology State criteria
Alaska Graduate funding & State criteria
Ken Kauffman, Retired, Oregon DHS Assistance & Support
This investigation was supported by an EPA Beach Grant awarded to Oregon
Department of Human Services, Environmental Services Section. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pagç
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION______1
1.1 EVENTS PRECEDING FEDERAL WATER LEGISLATION______1 1.2 HISTORY OF PUBLIC HEALTH LEGISLATION PERTAINING TO WATER 3 1.3 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY CRITERIA BASED ON PRE-1986 BACTERIA STUDIES 4 1.4 BEACH RELATED STUDIES SINCE ADOPTION OF THE 1986 AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 6 1.5 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH 9 CHAPTER 2: EVALUATING OREGON'S BEACH SITES FOR APPLICATION TO UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S BEACH ACT CRITERIA 11
2.2INTRODUCTION______11
2.3METHODS 13 2.3.1 Use 17 2.3.2 Available Information 21 2.3.3 Pollution Threats 22 2.3.4 Sanitary Survey 24 2.3.5 Monitoring Data______26 2.3.6 Exposure Considerations 28 2.3.7 Other Factors 28 2.3.8 Ranks and Tiers 29 2.4RESULTS 30 2.4.1 Use 30 2.4.2 Available Information 30 2.4.3 Pollution Threats 31 2.4.4 Sanitary Survey 32 2.4.5 Monitoring Data______34 2.4.6 Exposure Considerations 35 2.4.7 Other Factors 37 2.4.8 Ranks and Tiers 37 2.5 DISCUSSION 43 2.5.1 Seasonal Listing of Sites 43 2.5.2 Density and Use of Oregon's Recreational Waters 43 2.5.3 Monitoring DataFecal Coliform Conversion to E. coli 44 2.5.4 Other Factors 46 2.5.5 Pollution Sources and Sanitary Surveys 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
2.5.6 Comparing Oregon's Beach Selection Criteria with Other States_ 47 2.5.7 Tiers Revisited 49 2.5.8 Oregon 2003 Beach Information 50 2.6REFERENCES 54 CHAPTER 3: ASSESSING OREGON'S TWENTY-SIX COASTAL BEACH AREAS FOR RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS______58 3.2INTRODUCTION 59 3.3 METHODS 64 3.4RESULTS 68 3.4.1 E.coli Results 70 3.4.2 Enterococci Results 71 3.4.3 Indicator Comparison to Regulatory Action 73 3.5DISCUSSION 73 3.5.1 Creeks Transporting Bacterial Pollution 74 3.5.2 Rainfall Effects on Bacterial Concentrations______74 3.5.3 Proximity to Sewage Treatment Plants and Other Point Sources 76 3.5.4 Storage Effects on Bacterial Samples 77 3.5.5 Enterolert Analysis______77 3.5.6 E. coliversus Enterococci 78 3.5.7 Regulatory Action Results Compared with Other Studies______80 3.5.8 Oregon Department of Agriculture Monitoring______80 3.6CONCLUSION 81 3.7RECOMMENDATIONS 82 3.8 REFERENCES 84 CHAPTER 4: GENERAL CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY 91 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1 Diagram of Arch Cape STP Hydro-code 17
2.2 Map of Newport Beach Sites Potentially Impacted by STP
2.3 Map of Oregon Tiered Beaches in Clatsop, Tillamook & Lincoln Counties 41
2.4 Map of Oregon Tiered Beaches in Lane, Douglas, Coos & Cuny Counties 42
3.1 Map of Sample Points Along Cannon Beach, Oregon
3.2 Map of Oregon Sampled Beaches by Tier Levels 67
3.3 Map of Oregon Beach Sites with E. coli and Enterococci Exceedances 72
3.4 Picture of Otter Rock at South Cove Headland 75 LIST OF TABLES Table ige
2.1 Information Used in Site Selection 15
2.2 Coastal County Sanitarian Survey 18
2.3 Oregon Beaches by Exposure and Activity 31
2.4 Oregon STP Pollution Threats with Hydro-code and Potentially Impacted Beaches 33
2.5 Monitoring Data Exceeding ODEQ Estuarine Standard______35
2.6 Oregon Beaches by Total Score, Final Rank & Tier Level 38
2.7 Comparison of Oregon Beach Tiers 51
3.1 1986 Water Quality Criteria for Bacterial Densities 61
3.2 Bacterial Densities in Oregon Beach Waters Sampled in October 2002 68 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS cfu- colony forming units
E. coli- Escherichia coli
EPA- Environmental Protection Agency
LDC- Oregon Land Conservation and Development
Mem- Memorial mL- milliliter
Mtn- Mountain
ODA- Oregon Department of Agriculture
ODEQ- Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ODHS- Oregon Department of Human Services
OPR- Oregon Parks and Recreation Department
OSRUS- Oregon Shore Recreational Use Study
Pk- Park
Quad- quadrangle
Rec- Recreational
St- State
STP(s) Sewage Treatment Plant (s)
TMDL- Total Maximum Daily Loads
USD01 United States Department of Interior
USEPA- Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey EVALUATING OREGON'S BEACH SITES AND ASSESSING TWENTY-SIX COASTAL BEACH AREAS FOR RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
While this document is primarily focused on the federal regulation surrounding recreational water quality and application of bacterial standards to Oregon beaches; drinking, wastewater, and beach regulation have relevance. This is perhaps most transparent in the events preceding regulation. Holistically, any water legislation pertaining to control of microbial contaminants is applicable to discussion when speaking of the events leading to recreational water quality standards.
1.1 EVENTS PRECEDING FEDERAL WATER LEGISLATION
Pathogenic bacteria have the potential to cause human disease and thusare considered a public health threat (Corbett, Rubin, Curry & Kleinbaum, 1993;
Fleisher et al., 1996; Henrickson, Wong, Allen, Ford & Epstein, 2001, Prieto et al.,
2001P; USEPA, 1986, 2002b). The main exposure routes to bacterial pathogensare from contact or ingestion of fecally polluted water (Fleisher et al., 1996; USEPA,
1986, 2002b). Bacteria are omnipotent and present in all natural and most anthropogenic systems. Today, health officials and the public accept the cause and effect relationship of disease etiology. However,causes and transmission routes associated with bacterially induced illnesses have not always been established.
Early cases of waterborne disease were attributed to poor sanitation and health statistics (Sheldon, 1988). When John Snow, in England, disconnected the Broad 2 Street pump to control a cholera outbreak; the association of contaminants with water supply became recognized (Sheldon, 1988)
In the United States (US) during the19thcentury, successive outbreaks of cholera and typhoid fever decimated communities; fear of waterborne sicknesswas instrumental in establishing public health initiatives (Narragansett Bay Commission,
2002; O'Brien & Benedict, 1997; Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, 2003). The
US public suspected untreated contaminated drinking water as anexposure route.
Subsequent to waterborne epidemics, sewer and filtration systems were designed, constructed, and implemented. The first reported water systems were in Illinois,
Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania; these brief histories are described below.
In the 1850s decade, Chicago put into service piped water andsewer systems after repeated severe cholera outbreaks (O'Brien & Benedict, 1997). Due to frequent cholera epidemics in Providence, Rhode Islanders began combating illness through construction of sewers (Narragansett Bay Commission, 2002). Pittsburgh recognized the need for water purification after a typhoid fever epidemic; subsequent filtration of the Pittsburgh water supply began in 1908 (Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority,
2003).
United States epidemics of the early and late 1 800s were unexplainable until the scientific advancement made by Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur. In the late 1 800s,
Koch's bacteriological investigation methods led to the ability to determine thecause of an illness. Koch demonstrated that bacteria cause cholera and tuberculosis
(Sheldon, 1988). Coincidental investigations directed by Louis Pasteur demonstrated 3 the waterbacteria connection; later to be dubbed, the "germ theory" of disease
(Pontius & Clark, 1999; USEPA, 1999). Thereafter, disease epidemics had verifiable causes (bacteria, viruses, protozoa) and transmission routes (fecal-oral).
1.2 HISTORY OF PUBLIC HEALTH LEGISLATION PERTAINING TO WATER
The cycle of legislation detailing specific water quality parameters began in 1914 with the US Public Health Service (PHS) setting bacteria drinking water standards.
Further revisions and expansion of the drinking water standards occurred in 1925,
1946, and 1962 (USEPA 1999, 2000c). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of
1974 requires the testing of drinking and wastewaters for volatile organics, inorganics, organics, radioactive substances, and coliform bacteria (USEPA, 1997).
Additions of contaminants to the SDWA occurred with the 1986 (copper & lead) and
1996 (arsenic and disinfection by-products) amendments. United States drinking water-related disease outbreaks decreased (USEPA, 1999).
In contrast, sewage treatment had not been highly regulated and "[...].in 1948,
Congress provided some money [via the Water Pollution Control Act] to the states for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities" (Koren & Bisesi, 1996).
Principles of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 were continued in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, 1956 and the Water Quality Act of 1965 (Federal
Register, 1998). The technology based approach to water pollution control was inadequate and severe pollution threatened the nation's waters by the late 1960s.
Subsequently, "The Public Health Service established a National Technical Advisory Committee (NTAC) in 1968 [...]. The microbiological criterion suggested by the NTAC for bathing waters was based an a series of studies conducted during the late 1940's and early 1950's, by the United States Public Health Service, the results of which were summarized by Stevenson in 1953" (USEPA, 1986).
NTAC ascertained the need for further federal regulation. This federal regulation began with the passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972, and its primary purpose was to restore and maintain the nation's waters from pollution.
The two goals of the CWA were that water was to be clean enough for swimming and other recreational use and clean enough to protect fish and wildlife by July of 1983; and by 1985, no more discharges of any pollutants was to occur in the nation's waters (Koren & Bisesi, 1996).
Water quality standards were adopted by all states by the late 1970's. However, there were no federally enforceable mandates or standards (Federal Register, 1998).
Passage of the National Municipal Policy (1984) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 were modifications for the failure of the CWA regarding pollutant discharge into the nation's waters (Koren & Bisesi, 1996). Through the Water Quality Act of 1987, the federal government developed numeric criteria for toxic substances in waterbodies
(Federal Register, 1998).
1.3 RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY CRITERIA BASED ON PRE-1986 BACTERIA STUDIES
Prior to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the PHS investigated water quality issues. The first published freshwater recreational study was undertaken by Stevenson (1953). This study is the most frequently cited and influential because it brought attention to the issue of 5 recreational water-associated sickness. Deficiencies in Stevenson's study design included little statistical power, control of less than three confounders, and a poor definition of swimming (Pruss, 1998; USEPA, 1986). Stevenson, did however, determine that increasing total coliform concentrations increased risk of illness between swimmers and non-swimmers (1953). As a result of the Stevenson study, total coliform threshold limits were the first recreational water standards to be adopted (Noble, Moore, Leecaster, McGee & Weisberg, 2003).
To correct for deficiencies in the Stevenson study, marine and freshwater studies were initiated by EPA in 1972 (USEPA, 1986, 2002b). Both marine and freshwater studies established the health risks associated with swimming in sewage- contaminated water and the types of illnesses. Findings from these studies indicated a significant increase in gastroenteritis associated with swimming in sewage contaminated waters (USEPA, 1986).
The marine studies were conducted in New York, Massachusetts, and Louisiana over a period of three swimming seasons. The concentrations of ten indicator species were compared with the incidence of marine swimming associated gastroenteritis (USEPA, 1986). Of the indicator species, enterococci densities had the highest correlation to the incidence of highly credible gastroenteritis (r = 0.96) and gastroenteritis (r = 0.81) in study participants (Cabelli, Dufour, McCabe &
Levin, 1982). The marine studies, investigated by Cabelli, Dufour, Levin, McCabe
& Haberman (1979) resulted in EPA's adoption of the 1986 ambient marine water quality enterococci standard (Henrickson et al., 2001). Freshwater studies, conducted by Dufour (1984) determined correlations of gastroenteritis with concentrations ofEscherichia coli (E.coli) with an r coefficient of 0.80 and enterococci at r = 0.74 (Dufour, 1984; USEPA, 1986). EPA adopted either enterococci orE.coli as the indicator species for freshwater recreational water quality (USEPA, 1986).
1.4 BEACH RELATED STUDIES SINCE ADOPTION OF THE 1986 AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Indicator organisms are used by governmental agencies and environmental organizations to assess the quality of recreational waters (Noble et al., 2003; USEPA,
2002b). There are many etiologic agents, such as,E.coli, enterococci, salmonella, hepatitis, and Norwalk, responsible for swimming related illness (Dufour, 1984).
Present EPA standards are based onE.coli and enterococci (USEPA, 1986).
However, the use of enterococci as the sole indicator for marine water quality has not been adopted by all US coastal states or countries (California Administrative Code,
1998; Carney, 2002; Noble et al., 2003; USEPA, 2002b). Studies disagree about which indicator species and concentrations cause illness.
The association between indicator species in marine waters and associated illness has been studied in other countries. In Australia, fecal coliforms were better predictors of a variety of symptoms (Corbett et al., 1993). In Spain, Prieto et al.,
(2001) compared bathers at the highest total coliform concentrations withnon- bathers and determined a statistically significant increase in illness. Investigators in
Israel determined that enterococci were the most predictive indicator for disease in 7 the 0-4 year old age group (Fattal, Peleg-Olevsky, Agursky & Shuval, 1987). A
New Zealand study associated enterococci water concentrations and respiratory illness noting an increase in risk of illness with indicator densities above 13 enterococci per 100 mL (Bandarana-yake, Turner, McBride, Lewis & Till, 1995).
However, a Hong Kong study conducted by Kueh et al., (1995) found significant correlations betweenAeromonasand gastro-intestinal symptoms. In contrast,
Cheung, Chang, Hung & Kleevens (1990) could not establish a significant difference when comparing E. coli concentrations to the incidence of highly credible gastroenteritis. Furthermore, an English study performed by the Public Health
Laboratory Service, found a dose-response relationship for illnesses with increasing concentration of indicator species (Balarajan et al., 1991).
The only marine randomized control study was undertaken by Kay & Fleisher
(1994) off the coast of England in each of the four bathing seasons between 1989 through 1992. This study utilized 1306 volunteers, older than 18 years of age and asked about 9 confounding factors relating to exposure, age, gender, lifestyle choices, and illnesses. Exposure was based on head immersion and participants underwent medical exams. Water samples from chest depth were analyzed for five bacterial types at three of the study sites. The major finding was a relationship between fecal streptococci (including enterococci) concentrations above
32/deciLiters and gastroenteritis. However, significant this finding, the number of participants in this study was not enough to establish sufficient power (Pruss, 1998). Subsequent re-evaluation of the Kay & Fleisher (1994) study associated acute febrile respiratory illness with fecal streptococci (Fleisher et al., 1996). A concentration of 60 fecal streptococci per 100 mL was found to be the threshold for sickness (Fleisher et al., 1996). Telford (1996) noted that the Fleisher et al., (1996) study had crude illness rates that where not statistically significant between bathers and non-bathers, however, individual risk was significant at 60 fecal streptococci per
100 mL. Telford (1996) went on to ask should public health policy be based on crude rates or individual risk.
Recent studies have assessed how microbial sources (sewers, urban runoff, streams) impact bacterial indicator densities of marine waters (Crowther, Kay &
Wyer, 2001; Dwight, Semenza, Baker & Olson, 2002; Fujioka, 2001; Haile et al.,
1999; Lipp, Farrah & Rose, 2001). Henrickson et al., (2001) and Pruss (1998) reviewed recreational waterborne epidemiological studies, while other researchers reviewed microbiological recreational water quality (Borrego & Figueras, 1997;
Griffin, Lipp & McLaughlin, 2001; Mugglestone, Stutt & Rushton, 2001).
Researchers in California have investigated policy issues, pollution sources, and model application to enhance marine beach monitoring. Haile et al., (1999) detenTnined higher risks for swimming-associated symptoms when subjects swam near storm drains, in water with high levels of a single bacteria and low total to fecal coliform ratios, and in the presence of enteric viruses. Turbow, Osgood & Jiang
(2003) used a simulation model to extrapolate the incidence rate of highly credible gastroenteritis occurring from marine enterococci concentrations along an 8.5 mile stretch of California coastline. Furthermore, Schiff, Weisberg & Dorsey (2001) inventoried beach recreation monitoring programs for spatial distribution, type, number, and cost in an effort to provide the public with a comprehensive microbial assessment of California waters.
Three studies compared exceedances of regulatory standards by utilizing different indicator organisms (Kinzelman, Ng, Jackson, Gradus & Bagley, 2003;
Noble et al., 2003; Nuzzi & Burhans, 1997).
There are no published studies that discuss the methodology utilized in selecting beaches to monitor for application of EPA's BEACH Act performance and ambient water quality criteria. However, epidemiological studies selected sites based on proximity to large population areas (Cabelli et al., 1982; Stevenson, 1953), swimming popularity (Corbett et al., 1993; Stevenson, 1953), historical bacterial concentrations (Fleisher et al., 1996; Kay & Fleisher, 1994; Stevenson, 1953), and proximity to point sources (Fattal et al., 1987; Haile et al., 1999).
1.5 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
Many states began coastal recreational water quality monitoring by the 1990s.
As of 2002, Louisiana and Oregon are the only two states that do not monitor coastal recreational waters for bacterial indicators. The National Resources Defense Council
(2002), an environmental advocacy group, has thus labeled Oregona "beach bum".
This study selected 24 Oregon beaches with the highest potential for bacterial risk and assessed Oregon's coastal waters in order to fulfill EPA' s Beaches 10 Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act requirements. The study was initiated, in part, to address public concernover coastal swinmTling related illnesses. Specific research questions investigated in this studywere:
.Which coastal sites in Oregon should be monitored for bacterial indicators?
What are the enterococci andE.co/i levels present in the waters of 26 Oregon
beaches?
Do any of the 26 beach waters have bacterial indicators that exceed the single
sample maximum density for EPA's marine enterococci or ODEQ'sE.coli water
quality standards?
How would the adoption of EPA's marine enterococci standardover Oregon
DEQ' s estuarine standard affect regulatory actions? 11 CHAPTER 2: EVALUATING OREGON'S BEACH SITES FOR APPLICATION TO UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S BEACH ACT CRITERIA
2.1 ABSTRACT
With the passage of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act in 2000, coastal states were mandated to assess and sample coastal recreational waters for bacterial ambient water quality parameters. The assessment of beach sites required the application of federal guidelines anda tiered approach to delineating the beaches. In July 2002, Oregon began classifying beaches. Eighty- seven known beach sites were evaluated and ranked by use, available information, pollution threats, sanitary survey and monitoring data results,exposure considerations and economic/development factors. This resulted in 19 high priority beaches (tier 1), five medium priority beaches (tier 2), 23 low priority beaches, and
40 beaches with a rank of none. Future work should evaluate other parameters that may alter specific beach tiers established by this study. For example, surveys that determine the amount of marine water contact recreation activity as a fraction of beach attendance, average immersion times, and bather load, as well as, the length of each Oregon beach that bathers utilize would provide valuable information to further target bacterial monitoring at Oregon beaches.
2.2 INTRODUCTION
Our nation's beaches are a valuable recreational resource and one of the top vacation choices for Americans (USEPA, 2002b). The United States Environmental 12 Protection Agency (EPA) has mandated nationwide monitoring of beaches due to the potential exposure to bacterial pathogens in marine recreational waters. Inresponse to public concern over bathing-associated sicknesses and contaminated waters, EPA announced its Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH)
Program in 1997. The goal of the BEACH program is to reduce the risk of bacterial or pathogen induced disease to users of the U.S. recreation waters (USEPA, 2002b).
Further documentation on EPA's goals with respect to ambient water qualitywas published in an Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational Waters; this plan included strengthening the beach program, improving the science supporting recreational water programs, and empowering the public with information on water quality issues
(USEPA, 1999).
In October 2000, Congress signed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) which amended the Clean Water Act. The
BEACH Act requires Coastal and Great Lakes states to establish pathogen indicator monitoring and notification procedures at selected coastal recreation waters by 2004
(BEACH Act, 2000).
In June 2002, Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS), Environmental
Services and Consultation Section began work on evaluating and selecting coastal recreational water sites for application to BEACH Act regulations. This work was funded through an EPA Development Beach Grant and relied on grant criteria to select marine recreational sites in Oregon to monitor for bacterial indicators. The first step involved collecting information on Oregon beach sites includinguse, 13 available information, pollution threats, sanitary survey and monitoring data results, exposure considerations and economic/development factors as described in this paper. Based on the findings in this study, Oregon recently started developing a coastal beach-monitoring program.
The methodology used in Oregon to select beaches for inclusion in marine ambient water quality monitoring is presented in this paper. Chapter 3 evaluates
Oregon beach sites for application of EPA's marine single sample recreational water quality criteria and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (ODEQ) estuarine water quality standard.
2.3 METHODS
As shown in Table 2.1, Oregon sites were selected based on EPA criteria listed in the National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants
(USEPA, 2002b). Ranks were established for each beach based on the results obtained from each item of information. An information item with the highest number received a rank of one with subsequent numbers receiving successive integers. For example, the largest number of immersion uses (n = 5) would receive the rank of one. Beaches with four uses would receive a rank of two. Successive integers receive successive ranks (2, 3, 4...). Beaches with the same number of uses would receive the same rank. However, a reversal of assigning ranks was necessary to determine the significance of beach length on probable bacterial densities. Under exposure considerations, the approximate length of beach was assigned ranks based 14 on the shortest beaches receiving a rank of one whereas beaches of longer lengths received successive integers (2, 3, 4...). All information was entered intoan Excel spreadsheet categorized by beach name.
The Oregon Coast is approximately 362 miles long. All beachesare publicly accessible and range from rocky cliffs to large sandy expanses. Oregon has not officially adopted any definition of a bathing beach. However, in this studya public bathing beach is defined using a definition from the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi
Public Health Board (1990) publication as
"any body of water used for swimming, diving, or thcreational bathing and not contained within a structure, chamber, or tank. This includes natural lake impoundments, ponds, rivers, streams, and similar
outdoor facilities, which are partially natural in character {...1."
Coastal recreation waters do not include waters upstream of the mouth ofa river/stream. Points of access adjacent to coastal recreation waterswere included in the listing of sites; for example, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPR) define many beach access points as waysides, natural areas, scenic corridors,or recreation sites. All named beaches (n= 86), whether physically accessible or inaccessible were listed in this inventory.
Beach lengths are important to the categories of available use, pollution threats, sanitary surveys, monitoring data and exposure considerations. Distance parameters of ¼, 1, and 5 miles are used to ascertain if sewage treatment plants (STPs),non- point sources, point source dischargers, and aquaculture/aquarium facilities have bacterial impacts to the beach water quality. The beach boundariesare necessary to ascertain which beach(es) the radius of the source falls within. 15 Table 2.1 Information Used in Site Selection Category Information Items Jse Use Types of Use: Beaches with immersion activities Number of uses State water quality reports Available Information 2002 303-d Bacteria Listing of waterbodies within 1/4 mile TIv]IDL listing of waterbodies within 1/4 mile Jrban point and non-point sources Pollution Threats Number of sewage treatment plants (STPs) within 5 miles Number of non-point sources (Rivers, Creeks) within a 1/4 mile )ischargers Rainfall for this area April through September (in inches) Sanitary Surveys Number of STPs within 5 miles Number of point source dischargers within 1 mile Number of aquaculture/aquarium facilities within 5 miles Tumber of single sample exceedances of water quality standards Vlonitoring Dat 406Escherichia coilorganisms/100 milliLiters (mL) 104 Enterococci colony forming units/100 mL )ensity/Length Exposure Considerations Approximate length Peak density of bathers during bathing season conomics/Deve1opment Other Factors Importance of beach to local economy Public concerns about community development
OPR has some information on the length of Oregon beaches, however, this information is limited to the amount of beachfront footage the parks service owns.
Many Oregon beaches extend further then the property lines designated by the Parks and Recreation Department. Therefore, the approximation of beach boundaries was determined using US Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (quad) maps (USD01,
1984-1986). Headlands, major rivers, creeks, or bays were considered barriers for people accessing stretches of beach and mileage was stopped at these points.
Likewise, a non-marine waterbody inventory is needed to assess pollution threats 16 and sanitary survey data. Two methods were used for obtaining the names of these waterbodies draining into Oregon marine waters. The identification and recording of river, creek, and bay names along the Oregon Coastline was the first step in the waterbody inventory. The names of the water bodies draining on the beach! beachfront and within a quarter mile from the beach were compiled. The first method utilized USGS quad maps to compile a list of beaches, the beaches' estimated lengths, and affiliated streams, creeks, and rivers within the length.
Utilizing a web-based map program, TopoZone (2002), provided some creek and river names draining into Oregon Coast waters that were not listed on USGS quad maps, however, neither of these information sources provided names to all waterbodies.
Hydro-codes were utilized in collecting information items pertaining to STPs and point source dischargers. ODEQ utilizes the hydro-code to define a point source discharge area. Hydro-codes are comprised of four (or more) elements: a basin code, a sub-basin code, a waterbody type code, and an abbreviation of the waterbody name
(ODEQ, 2002b). For example, the Arch Cape STP has the following hydro-code:
1 iC-ARCH 0.5, which is graphically represented in Figure 2.1. The basin and sub- basin which the STP discharges to are represented by 1 1C. The waterbody code is represented by the dash (-); this indicates a stream or river. The next string of characters, ARCH, is the waterbody name which is followed by the approximate location, from the mouth of the stream/river, in miles, of the effluent pipe (0.5). 17
Figure 2.1 Diagram of Arch Cape STP Hydro-code
Arch Cape Creek / Effluent pipe
Ocean 0.5 miles
2.3.1 Use
In this study, Oregon beach selection criteria were based on total water immersion activities and potential for water ingestion. Fishing and pleasure boating were not considered as immersion activities, unless specified as surf fishing. Sites with immersion activities were assigned a value of one. Non-immersion activity sites received a rank of two and unknown uses were given a value of three.
A listing of potential beach sites was compiled using the Oregon Parks and Recreation (2001 a) Visiting State Parks webpage. Written and oral informal surveys were employed to ascertain the location, types of use, number of uses, season, and rate of use occurring in Oregon coastal recreational waters. Information was obtained from county sanitarians, parks managers and employees, Coast Watch/Oregon Shores Volunteers, lifeguards, and individuals associated with
Oregon Surfrider Foundation, an environmentalgroup involved in water quality and beach development issues.
Work began in July 2002 with a coastal swimarea survey which was emailed to the seven coastal sanitarians in Clatsop, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, and
Tillamook counties (Table 2.2). Sanitarians were asked to fill in thesurvey form and email, mail, or fax it back to the state ODHS office in Portland, Oregon. Clatsop and
Lincoln county sanitarians returned a hardcopy of the survey while the other 5 counties were contacted via telephone after approximatelyone month. The Oregon
Volunteer Coordinator from Surfrider was also asked to fill ina similar survey form.
Table 2.2 Coastal Swim Area Survey Beach/Park Season Use Rate Name Location (persons/day)Nature of Use e.g. Catchin' 1333 OceanFront 7/31- 12 Swimming Rays Drive Newport 8/30 (80%), Windsurfing (20%) Coastal Swim Area--Any body of water withina bay or on the ocean front that is used for swimming, diving, recreational bathing,or other recreational activities (surfing, waterskiing, etc). Please do not include any freshwater areas.
Initial statistics on use of state parks was obtained from Oregon State Park
Camping Attendance and Day-use Visitors statistics for July 2000 through 2001
(OPR, 2001b). Using data obtained from an Oregon State Park Visitor Survey,a rough estimate of the number of individuals entering the coastal waterswas ascertained. This survey found that use of swimming areas by camperswas 38% whereas day-users recreated in the swinming areas only 26% of the time (OPR, 19
1998). However, the OPR's survey did not ask for immersion statistics whichwas the information needed in this study. Additional correspondence with an OPR
(Havel, Telephone interview, July 2002) statistician resulted in an estimate of 2 out of 10 persons entering the water (rough statistic). However, this statistic depended on location and would most likely be a peak number that included people wading in beachfront creeks, tidepooling, or walking along the waterline (Havel, Telephone interview, July 2002). Due to the geographical differences along the Oregon Coasta more thorough investigation of water recreators was warranted for each beach.
All of the ten Oregon State Parks and Recreation Coastal Managers were contacted via email and telephone for additional water activity information. Three parks managers estimated the number of people having contact with seawater by percentages per year (Davidson, Henderson & Smith, Telephone interviews, July
2002). Five parks managers estimated the peak number of people per day that had contact with the coastal waters (Arnold, Becker, Crocker, Eckley & Sutter,
Telephone interviews, July 2002). In two state park management areas, Cape
Lookout and Fort Stevens, the managers ranked the beaches/areas with the highest number of people entering the waters (Marvin & Riley, Telephone interviews,
August 2002).
Use information was collected for 80 of the 86 beach sites (93%). However, six beaches including Arizona, Columbia, Cove, Nesika, Three Rocks, and Wakeman beaches had no water use information available from sanitarians, parksmanagers, nor Surfrider. To gather more information, a request for information was sent to 600 20 members of the Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition via an email bulletin. Only two responses were received via email which provided information for Cove and
Three Rocks beaches (Boyden, Hess, Personal correspondence, October 2002).
In addition to contacting OPR Coastal Managers, Surfrider and Oregon Shores
Conservation Coalition members, information was also gathered from the head lifeguards at two Oregon beaches. Lifeguards are hired at Cannon Beach and
Seaside during the summer season. All beaches are owned by OPR, however, management of these two beaches is given over to the cities of Cannon Beach and
Seaside. Seaside's Head Lifeguard estimated peak number of primary contactusers per day (Chamberlain, Telephone interview, July 2002). Communication with John
Rippee, head lifeguard for Cannon Beach, provided head counts of persons in the water. These head counts were recorded from July through Labor Day of 2002
(Rippee, Telephone interviews, 2002).
Additional information on the city of Brookings and the surrounding beacheswas obtained via Port of Brookings city workers (Barker, Crabtree, Telephone interviews,
2002). Only information on types of water recreation was provided.
A series of meetings began in July of 2002 to ascertain beaches with primary contact recreation, use amounts, and number of uses. These meetings were attended by members of Surfrider, one member of Oregon Land Conservation and
Development (LDC), and ODEQ staff, when available. At these meetings, constituents of Surfrider provided information on number of users and types of use occurring on the Oregon Coast. The Suririder Volunteer Coordinator, Dave Revell, 21 verbally listed the top 20-25 spots for use along the Oregon Coast (Revell, Meeting topic, August 2002). Paul Kiarin, a Coastal Specialist with LDC, provideda written list of tiered beach sites (Kiarin, Meeting topic, August 2002).
Excluding fishing and boating, the number of immersion uses was summed for each beach site. Beaches were ranked from 1 to 5 basedon immersion information.
The site(s) with the highest number of known immersion uses was rankedas one. A rank of 6 was given to sites with fishingor boating activities. Unknown use sites, which had no data, were given a value of seven.
2.3.2 Available Information
"Part of the process of evaluating potential health risks related to exposure to pathogens during bathing or swimming activities is to compile available information about each beach indicating the potential for contamination by microbial pathogens. This information can be found in reports that include information on water bodies that are or are not in attainment of their designated uses and lists of impaired water bodies" (USEPA, 2002b).
The 303-d list summarizes state waters not in attainment of their designateduses
(ODEQ, 2002c). Waters can be cataloged for many reasons, but the non-attainment of bacteria water standards was the only criteria used in culling information from the
Oregon 303-d list. Fecal coliform andEscherichia coli (E. coli)water density standards are utilized in 303-d listing of waters. These bacterial standardsare listed below:
"Fecal coliform median concentration of 14 organisms (orgs)/100 milliLiters (mL), with no more than 10% of samples exceeding 43 orgs/100 mL in shellfish growing and harvesting areas" (ODEQ, 15 Aug 2001). 22
"E. coli concentrations for water contact in fresh and estuarine waters are not to exceed [a geometric mean of] 126 orgs/100 mL and/or 406 ogrsIlOO mL single sample maximum" (ODEQ, 15 Aug 2001).
EPA did not list a specific distance from 303-dor total maximum daily load
(TMDL) listed waterbodies and beach sites. With the inherent spatial and temporal variability of bacterial samples and 5 of the 6 (83%) relevant non-marine Oregon waterbodies were not in attainment of the fecal coliform standard (ODEQ, 2002c), this study deemed a1/4mile radius from a 303-d listed waterbody would be sufficient for potential bacterial impacts to beach sites.
TMDLs are created by intensive sampling of 303-d listed bays. Information obtained from TMDL sampling is then used to create a model of environmental impacts to the waterbody. The previously collected waterbody listwas compared to
ODEQ's TIMIDL file (ODEQ, 2002d) and beaches withina quarter mile of the listed waterbody were given a value of one.
2.3.3 Pollution Threats
Generally, people can potentially be affected by bacterial pollution if concentrations are high and contact with the water is prolonged. Threats to marine water from microbial pollution are from a variety of sources including National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES), pointsources, and non-point associated bacterial loading from urban and agricultural products transported to beach waters through rivers and creeks. Boundaries utilized to assess pollution impacts varied with the discharge type. Utilizing EPA's (2002b) criteria, STPs 23 within 5 miles of beach boundarieswere summed. For continuity with available
information, 303-d and TMDL, a potential impacted water qualityzone of a1/4mile
was utilized for non-point sources (rivers/creeks).
Oregon defines non-point sources in Administrative Rule #340-41-006 (17)as,
"diffuse or unconfined sources of pollution where wastescan either enter into or be
conveyed by the movement of water to public water" (OAR, 2001 ed.). Manynon-
point sources originate from land and enter into rivers/creeks (diffuse source) which
empty into the ocean. In order to ascertain impacts from Oregon non-point sources,
sites were ranked based on the number of rivers and creeks along each beach.
STP information was utilized in the pollution threat and sanitarysurvey
categories (see Table 2.1). To obtain the number of STPs for each individual
beachfront, the hydro-code information from wastewater permitswas employed
(ODEQ, 2002a & b). The approach to compiling the STP inventory included
comparing the previously stated non-marine waterbody list with the hydro-codes of
STPs. Marine waters within a five milezone of sewage treatment plant effluent have
the potential for water quality impacts (USEPA, 2002b). The five mile radius from the STP effluent was pinpointed on a map. Beach boundarieswere then compared to where the STP had influence and the names and number of STPswas compiled for each site. For instance, Newport's STP,as represented in Figure 2.2, would impact 5 beaches including Lost Creek, South, Yaquina Bay, Nye, and Agate. An initial cross-reference of waterbodies and hydro-codes produceda list of potential STPs to verify. Further investigation into this list witha cross-reference to permitee location 24 resulted in 34 four hydro-codes of interest.
The compiled list of STPs was then checked for accuracy with Oregon NPDES
Inspectors. Only STPs with direct discharge into waterbodies withina 5 mile radius of the beachfront were compiled with the following three exceptions: Gold Beach and two STPs which have treatment lagoons on the beach. Gold Beach discharges into Riley Creek in winter and the STPs with treatment lagoons on the beach increase the likelihood of bacteria entering marine water.
Figure 2.2 NeiortPi each Sites Potentially P
JA gate
Yaquina Bay
Yaquina River IVSouth
Lost Creek
Newport STP Effluent Pipe 5 mile STF' Radius
2.3.4 Sanitary Survey
A sanitary survey can be used to evaluate and document sources of contaminants that might adversely affect public health (USEPA, 2002b). These surveys can be helpful to identify sources of pollution including rainfall and point source dischargers. 25 Rainfall is an important factor in sanitary surveys because bacteriacan be transported from upland sources into water. Pollution can typically be expected to reach a peak after rainfall when storm water washes fecal material into receiving waters (Jagals, 1996; USEPA, 2002b). Rain data was available for Oregon beaches from 16 precipitation monitoring stations. Rainfall amounts for April through
September were obtained via the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC, 2002) for all beaches. Astoria, Bandon, Brookings, Cape Blanco, Clioverdale, Gold Beach,
Honeyman, Nehalem, Newport, North Bend, Otis, Port Orford, Reedsport, Seaside,
Tidewater, and Tillamook were the monitoring stations employed for precipitation data. The latitude and longitude of these stations were mapped and compared to each beach. The nearest gauge's data was entered for each site.
A point source is any confined and discrete conveyance (e.g. pipe, channel, tunnel, etc) from which pollutants are or may be discharged (Kennish, 2001). In this study, point sources were evaluated using NPDES and wastewater permits. EPA guidelines delineate impacted areas within a one mile radius from point source dischargers (USEPA, 2002b). Thus, permitees (dischargers) listedas having direct effluents into the waterbodies of interest were considered pointsources in this evaluation. NPDES and general permitees included STPs, seafood processors,
Department of Defense and wood processing facilities, ports, construction, and miscellaneous companies (ODEQ, 2002a & b). However, since STPs were utilized in a separate information item (under pollution threats, Table 2.1) thesewere not assessed again as a point source discharger. Briefly, a comparison of point source 26 hydro-codes with beaches produced an inventory which was subsequently ranked.
Wastes from fish and related aquaria are often directly discharged into waterbodies without treatment. However, EPA accepted public comment for concentrated aquatic animal facilities (Federal Register, 2002) and is developing national effluent guidelines for these facilities (Zanetell, 2003). Aquaculture/ aquarium wastes can be high in coliform bacteria thereby impacting beach water quality. A cross-reference of aquariumlaquaculture facility latitude and longitude
(ODEQ, 2002b) with beach latitude and longitude boundaries delineated potentially impacted beaches within a 5 mile radius (USEPA, 2002b).
2.3.5 Monitoring Data
Bacterial monitoring data was available from Surfrider (2002), ODEQ Water
Quality (2002e), and Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) Shellfish Program
(2002). To compare data with beach location, the latitude and longitude of the bacterial sampling station was located on a map and the impacted beachwas ascertained. The geometric mean (five samples per 30 day period) could not be calculated from the sampling frequency utilized by the ODA, ODEQ, or Surfrider.
All data was compared to ODEQ's estuarine E. coli and EPA's designated beach enterococci single sample maximum density.
ODA collected water samples for fecal coliform tests at various locations in
Seaside from 1995 through 1998. These water samples were quantified for fecal coliforms and enterococci by membrane filtration and most probable number (Iv]PN) 27 methods. In an effort to convert fecal coliforrn data into useable E. coli data, the following equation was applied (Cude, in press):
Fecal coliform = 1.821 x (E. coli)"0.9465
ODEQ and ODA available data was for 1976 thru 2001. ODEQ bacterial results utilized membrane filtration, MPN, and defined substrate technology (Colilert).
Results of an August 2002 beach water sampling effort performed by ODHSwere also included in the ranking of monitoring data. ODHS's Public Health Laboratory utilized Colilert and Enterolert (both of IDDEX, Westbrook, ME) kits to analyze the
August 2002 water samples.
Surfrider provided baseline bacteria data for five beaches. Surfrider data encompassed three years, beginning in 1999. Nye, South, Agate, Otter Rock-Marine
Gardens, and Otter Rock-South Cove beaches were sampled by the Surfrider Blue
Water Task Force. E. coil concentrations were determined using Colilert-1 8 test kits
(IDDEX, Westbrook, ME). At Surfrider beach sites, water sampleswere collected at approximately monthly intervals from July of 1999 through March 2002.
ODEQ established an estuarine water quality standard in the late 1990s. This standard is based on E. coil with a geometric mean of 126 organisms/100 mL anda single sample criterion of 406 organisms/100 mL. Colony forming units (cfu), MPN, and organisms (orgs) are used interchangeably for comparing bacterial results with governmental standards. Comparatively, ODEQ' s single sample standard is similar to EPA's Lightly Used Full Body Contact Recreation water standard of 410 cfu/100 mL (USEPA, 1986) with confidence limits of 90%. Data compiled from state sources were compared to the single sample E. coli standard of 406 orgs/100 mL.
Multiple exceedances on a beach were summed.
EPA's single sample maximum for enterococci bacteria in designated beach
areas is 104 cfu per 100 mL (USEPA, 1986). Waters were sampled for enterococci
by ODA in the shellfish program for the period 1988-1994 and October of 1986.
Wastewater treatment plants and ODEQ sampled for enterococci between 1990 and
1994. The results of ODHS sampling efforts in August 2002 were also included in
the monitoring data enterococci comparisons.
2.3.6 Exposure Considerations
The approximate length of the beach open to bathers and the peak density of
bathers during the swimming season were two factors considered when selecting
beach sites. As described earlier, all of Oregon's beachesare open to bathers. In
contrast to other ranking criteria, the site(s) with the shortest length were ranked as
one, while longer beaches were given successive ranks.
Lifeguards, surfers, resident sanitarians, locals, businesses, Chambers of
Commerce, and Parks and Recreation employees were asked to estimate the peak
number of persons in the water per day during the summer season. The peak numbers were then divided by beach length to obtaina peak density statistic.
2.3.7 Other Factors
Local economies can be damaged by a swimming associated disease outbreak. 29 Therefore, cities that expend money on beach advertisement and provide lifeguards
are considered important in the site selection process. Two beaches in Oregon have
lifeguards which are employed by their respective cities. This isa benefit for the
North Coast economies in that providing life-guarded beaches, these cities draw
families to the coast, thereby increasing revenues. This factor is important in site
selection because Oregon would want to monitor these beaches for bacterial
concentrations, thereby protecting public health and ensuring economic growth.
Beaches that provide a lifeguard and/or are important to the localeconomy were
given a rank of one.
Another factor considered in site selection involved publicconcerns about
development. When development occurs at a pace quicker than what public utilities
can handle, issues are raised about disposal of wastes and runoff. Areas that were of
public concern received a rank of one.
2.3.8 Ranks and Tiers
The compilation of the ranks for information items in Table 2.1were summed for
each beach. Risk of a recreational water disease outbreak would be increased at beaches with high probability of pathogens in the water. Beaches with the lowest
summed ranks have the highest probability of elevated pathogens. These beachesare to be sampled for ambient water quality standards. Funding established the number of beaches within each tier level. A total of 24 tier 1 & 2 beacheswere to be sampled 5 times per month, while tier 3 sampling should occuronce per month, in accordance with other Oregon bacterial water monitoring standards. In contrast, immersion density statistics were consulted for delineating the tiers.
2.4 RESULTS
2.4.1 Use
Continuing with the original classification system described in Table 2.1, of the
86 known Oregon beach sites, there are 57 listed with immersion activities (Table
2.3). Cape Kiwanda had the highest number of known uses with five activities including swimming, surfing, windsurfing, jet-skiing, and wading. Fishingor fishing and boating activities, considered non-immersion endeavors,are the primary activity at 24 sites, while five sites have no use information (Table 2.3).
2.4.2 Available Information
The category of available information entails the Oregon state water quality 303- d report and TMDL listing. Waterbodies not in attainment of the bacterial standards can potentially impact beach sites. A comparison of water bodies with the 303-d list resulted in 13 potentially impacted beach sites including: Governor Patterson,
Driftwood, Alsea Bay, Fort Stevens, Bandon Ocean, Bullards, Nehalem Bay,
Seaside, Sunset, Manhattan, South, Yaquina Bay, and Nye beaches. Two beaches,
Seaside and Sunset, are potentially impacted by the Necanicum River which is not in attainment of ODEQ' s estuarine E co/i standard.
Bacteria TMDLs also have the potential to impact beach sites. ODEQ has been 31 sampling and modeling Oregon bays to assess urban and agricultural inputs. Results indicate that four beaches: Kiwanda-North, Neskowin, Cape Meares, and Rockaway could potentially be impacted by the TMDLs of Nestucca or Tillamook Bay.
Table 2.3 Oregon Beaches by Exposure and Activity Exposure Activities Beaches Agate, Alsea Bay, Bandon State, Bastendorff, Battle Rock, Beachside, Beverly, Boiler, Buena Vista, Cannon, Cape Kiwanda, Cape Meares, Cove, D-River, Depoe Bay, Fogarty Creek, Fort Swinmiing Stevens, Gleneden, Gov Patterson, Gravel wading Pullout, Harris, Heceta, Heceta Head, Kiwanda- windsurfing North, Lighthouse, Manzanita, Mill, Moolack, scuba diving Immersion MO Ponsler, Nelscott, Neptune, Neskowin, surf-fishing North, Nye, Oceanside, Ona, Short Sands surfing (Oswald West), Otter Rock-Marine Gardens& jet-skiing South Cove, Pistol River, Roads End, kite-boarding Rockaway, Sand, Seal Rock, Seaside, Seven Devils, Siletz Bay, South, Sporthaven, Sunset Bay, Sunset, Umpqua Lighthouse, Whiskey Run, Winchuck, Windy Cove, Yachats State, Yaquina Bay Arcadia, Bandon Ocean, Bolon Island, Buflards, Cape Arago, Cape Blanco-N&5, Cape Boating Non- Lookout, Cape Sebastian, Driftwood, Ecola, fishing Immersion Hug Point Lost Creek, Manhattan, Nehalem, kayaking Oregon Dunes, Otter Point, Port Orford Heads, SH Boardman, Shore Acres, Smelt Sands, Stonefield, Tillicum, Yachats Ocean Unknown Arizona, Columbia, Nesika, Three Rocks, Wakeman
2.4.3 Pollution Threats
There are 34 hydro-codes with the potential to pollute beach sites. The hydro- codes inventory produced 32 STPs as listed in Table 2.4. The STPs have the potential to affect 44 of the 57 immersion beach sites. Two immersion beaches that 32 have the highest number of STPs (n= 5) within a five mile radius are Cape Meares and Rockaway. Sixteen beaches had no STP outfalls.
Along Oregon's 362 mile coastline thereare over 200 rivers and creeks. Samuel
H. Boardman Scenic Corridor, a non-immersion beach, has 16 rivers/creeks that flow into the waters of the 2.3 mile beach. Of the 57 known immersion beaches, four have no non-point sources including Manzanita, Lighthouse, Otter Rock at Marine
Gardens, and Mill.
2.4.4 Sanitary Survey
The sanitary survey category gathers informationon precipitation and location of
STP, point source dischargers, and aquaculture facilities.
Precipitation averages for a 30 to 70 year period were available for all beaches.
Beach sites had April through September rainfall averages of 11.75 to 26.68 inches
(in). Beaches with the highest rainfall amounts (26.68 in)were Rockaway, Oregon
Dunes, Manhattan, Twin Rocks, Cape Meares, Manzanita, Nehalem Bay, and
Oswald West. At 11.75 inches of rainfall, Bandon, Bandon Ocean, Bullards, Seven
Devils, Winchester Bay, Whiskey Run, and Windy Cove had the lowest precipitation amounts. 33 Table 2.4 Oregon STP Pollution Threats with Hydro-code and Potentially Imoacted Beaches STP Name Hydro-code Potential Beach Sites Impacted Arch Cape 1 iC-ARCH 0.5 Coos Bay 1 14A*COOS 0 Coos Bay 2 14A*COOS 0 Bandon 14B-COQU 0.5 Cannon Beach 11C-ELK 0 Seaside 1 1C-NECA Nehalem Bay 1 1D-NEHA 2 Neskowin 1 1E-NE5K 0 Pacific City 1 1E-NEST 4 Josephine 15-ROGU 0 Agate, Alsea Bay, Bandon State, Wedderburn 15=-ROGU 0 Bastendorff, Battle Rock, Gold Beach 1 15=-ROGu Beachside, Beverly, Boiler Bay, Buena Vista, Cannon Beach, Cape Gold Beach 2 15=-ROGU 5 Meares, D-River, Depoe Bay, Lincoln City 12ASCHO 0.8 Gleneden, Gov Patterson, Harris, Salishan 12A*SILE 3.5 Heceta, Kiwanda-North, PO-Langlois 14C-STXE 3.2 Lighthouse, Manzanita, Mill, Florence 12C-SIUS 4.1 Moolack, Nelscott, Neptune, Lakeside 14A-TENM 2.7 Neskowin, North, Nye, Oceanside, Oswald West, Otter Rock-MG& Bay City 1 1E*TILL 0 SC, Rockaway, Seaside, Siletz Garibaldi 1 1E*TILL 0 Bay, South, Sporthaven, Sunset Winchester Bay 13C-UMPQ 1.2 Bay, Sunset, Umpqua Lighthouse, Twin Rocks 1 1E-WATS 0.2 Whiskey Run, Winchuck, Windy Brookings 1 1o=*pACIE 460 Cove, Yachats, Yaquina Bay Brookings 1 10=*PACI 460 Depoe Bay 10=*PACI 175.6 H2O&S 10=*PACI 179 North Bend 1 14*COOS 7.7 Waldport 12B+LJNT 0.6 Netarts-Oceansjde 10=*PACI 0 Newport i0=*PACI 188 Rainbow Rock 10=*PACI 419.7 Yachats 10=*PACI 214.5
There are 40 direct point source effluents from seafood processors, federal and local governmental agencies, and miscellaneous companies withinone mile of the
Oregon coastline. North Beach has the most point source dischargers with 12, while
Nye, Yaquina Bay and South Beach had nine dischargers withina mile.
Umpqua Aquaculture, Oregon Coast Aquarium, and Port of Newport's Yaquina
Bay Salmon Ranch are the aquaculture/aquarium facilities within five miles of beach sites. Two facilities are located near Newport, Oregon and potentially affect Nye,
Yaquina Bay, South, and Agate beaches. Umpqua Aquaculture can affect Oregon
Dunes & Umpqua Lighthouse beaches.
2.4.5 Monitoring Data
Water samples analyzed for fecal coliforms,E.coli, or enterococci from special interest groups or governmental agencies were utilized as monitoring data. Bacterial baseline data from 1976 through August of 2002was obtained for approximately
25% of the selected sites. This data varied by indicator species and sample frequency.
By utilizing the reverse of the Oregon-based fecal coliform toE.coli regression equation, ODA fecal coliform data were converted to E.coli values. Nye, Umpqua
Lighthouse, Manhattan, Nehalem Bay, Sunset, Seaside, Otter Rock-South Cove, and
Otter Rock-Marine Gardens were found to exceed the406 E.coli orgs/100 mL standard. The number of times each beach exceed the maximumE.coli allowance was summed. Nye Beach exceeded the E. coli standard on four separate occasions and Umpqua Lighthouse on three occasions. Manhattan, Nehalem, Seaside, and 35 Sunset exceeded the standard twice while both sites at Otter Rock exceeded the standard once (Table 2.5).
Enterococci exceedances of EPA's 104 cfu/100 mL single sample maximum occurred at stations near Windy Cove (120 cfu/100 mL) and Umpqua Lighthouse
(110 cfuJlOO mL) beaches. In 1991, the beach at Nehalem Bay (>400 cfu/100 mL) also exceeded s marine enterococci standard. A sample point at Beverly Beach slightly exceeded the enterococci standard in August of 2002 witha 109 MPN/100 mL density.
Table 2.5 Monitoring Data Exceeding ODEQ Estuarine Standard E. coli (MPNor Beach Name cfu/100 mL) Manhattan >868, 751 Nehalem 409, 409 >1600, 1600, Nye 920,510 Otter Rock-Marine Gardens 1289 Otter Rock-South Cove 920 Seaside&Sunset 718, 409
Umpqua Lighthouse 1289, 718, 409
2.4.6 Exposure Considerations
Beach length ranged from'/4(Miii) to 23.62 miles (Oregon Dunes). Ona Beach is split into two crescent shapes by Beaver Creek and the total lengthwas estimated at 0.45 mile.
In order to determine density data the amount of use at the Oregon beach sites 36 was needed. The amount of marine immersion use estimated as a percentage per year by parks managers ranged from 0 at sites with no direct access (Otter Crest) or freshwater swimming areas (Arcadia) to 40% at Oswald West. Peak numbers per day as estimated by 5 parks managers ranged from 0 (Boiler Bay, Yachats State) to
200 (Beverly, Fogarty, D-River). The two parks managers at Cape Lookout and Fort
Stevens ranked the top three immersion beaches in their jurisdiction. Oceanside,
Cape Lookout, and Kiwanda-North were the top three beaches for immersion use within the Cape Lookout Management Unit. Fort Stevens and Del Reywere the top two beaches in the Fort Stevens Management Unit.
According to beach lifeguards, Cannon Beach had over 300 people in the water on a hot, clear day in August 2002 (Rippee, Telephone interview, 2002). Seaside's
Head Lifeguard estimated the peak immersion number at 150 persons per day
(Chamberlain, Telephone interview, July 2002). Dave Revell of Surfrider, provided information on 21 sites including Kiwanda-N (n = 10) and Cape Kiwanda (n= 80).
Sanitarians provided marine use numbers between five (Gov Patterson) to 70 people/day (Road's End) at beach sites. The average of the use numbers was utilized for a beach (Agate) when there were multiple respondents.
Density data is the immersion use number divided by the beach length. Of the 57 known immersions sites, 47 have density data. In this study, density was assessed only for people undertaking immersion activities and is not a statistic of people recreating on the beach sand. Density numbers ranged from 536 people/mile
(Oswald West) to 0.13 people/mile at Bandon State. The highest density of bathers 37 occurred at Oswald West State Park (Short Sands Beach) which is popular with
surfers and swimmers (295 people/day) and is located between the headlands of
Cape Falcon (North) and Devils Caidron (South), creatinga beach 0.55 miles in
length.
2.4.7 Other Factors
The other factors considered in the Oregon beach selectionprocess included
development and economic issues. Cannon and Seaside beachesare important to
local economies because their respective city governments employ lifeguards from
Memorial Day to Labor Day. Additionally, Sporthaven Beach, in Brookings, is
important to the local economy. Concerns about the rate of development in the
following communities were voiced: Cannon Beach, Newport, and Otter Rock
(Klarin, Kauffman & Revell, Personal correspondence, August 2002).
2.4.8 Ranks and Tiers
Ranks were established based on the sum of the information items, the lowest
sum has the highest risk of bacterial pollution and was given a rank of one. The results of the initial beach ranking were subject to internal review by LDC, ODEQ, and ODHS staff. Six beaches including Yachats State, Heceta Head Lighthouse,
Boiler Bay, Lighthouse, Neptune, and Depoe Baywere removed from the ranks due to inaccessibility. Windy Cove and Umpqua Lighthouse beaches were removed due to another state agency sampling within the area. Rockaway encompasseda beach previously called Twin Rocks.
An administrative decision established the number of beaches in tier levels. This decision was based on grant sources and the frequency of beach bacterial monitoring.
However, seventeen of the 19 tier one sites have immersion density statistics of 536 to 36 people/mile. Rockaway and Otter Rock-Marine Gardens were moved into tier
I due to high probability of pollution threats via septic or STP lifespan issue. Tier 2 and 3 beaches had 33 to 0.13 people/mile immersion numbers. Tier 2 beacheswere the next 5 beaches in the ranks. Tier 3 Oregon beaches were the remainder of the sites that had immersion activities and could not be categorized as none. A rank of none was established for beaches with unknown use type, no immersion activities, or accessibility issues.
Results of this study indicate that there are 19 high priority beaches (tier 1), 5 medium priority beaches (tier 2), 23 low priority beaches (tier 3), and 40 beaches ranked none. Table 2.6 presents the Oregon beaches by rank. Oregon beaches in tier levels 1 through 3 are located by county in Figures 2.3 and 2.4.
Table 2.6 Oregon Beaches by Total Score, Final Rank & Tier Level TotalFinal BEACH NAME ScoreRankTier
Oswald West St Pk (Short Sands) 52 1 1
Fogarty Creek Rec Area 60 2 1
Yaquina Bay State Recreation Site 60 2 1
D River Recreation Site 64 3 1
Nye Beach 64 3 1
Mill Beach 65 4 1
Siletz Bay 66 5 1 39 Table 2.6 Oregon Beaches by Total Score, Final Rank & Tier Level (Continued) TotalFinal BEACH NAME ScoreRankTier Yachats State Recreation Area 67 6 None
Sporthaven 69 7 1
Beverly Beach St Park 71 8 1 Heceta Head Lighthouse 71 8 None
Harris Beach St Park 73 9 1 Boiler Bay 75 10 None
Ona Beach St Park 75 10 1
Otter Rock, South Cove 76 11 1
Sunset Bay State Park 77 12 1
Seaside-S 79 13 1
Otter Rock, Marine Gardens 83 14 1
Rockaway Beach 85 15 1
South Beach St Park (South Jetty) 86 16 1
Cannon Beach 87 17 1
Oceanside Beach St Rec Site 87 17 1 Alsea Bay 88 18 2 Bastendorff (Coos Head) 88 18 2 Lighthouse Beach (Coos Bay, Arago) 88 18 None Beachside State Rec Site 91 19 2 Neptune St Scenic Viewpoint 94 20 None Agate Beach Rec Site 96 21 2 Winchuck State Park 96 21 2 Nelscott 98 22 3 Cape Kiwanda Nat Area 106 23 3 Road's End St Recreation Site 106 23 3 Windy Cove 106 23 None Manzanita 113 24 3 Moolack Beach (John's Pt) 113 24 3 Table 2.6 Oregon Beaches by Total Score, Final Rank & Tier Level (Continued Total Final BEACH NAME ScoreRank Tier Gov Patterson Mem Rec Site 114 25 3 Sunset Beach 114 25 3 Cape Meares 115 26 3 Neskowin Beach St Rec Site 115 26 3 Seal Rock State Rec Site 116 27 3 Gleneden BeachRec Site 118 28 3 Whiskey Run 118 28 3 Depoe Bay 119 29 None Fort Stevens State Park 120 30 3 Pistol River Scenic Viewpoint 124 31 3 Heceta 125 32 3 Muriel 0 Ponsler Viewpoint 130 33 3 Buena Vista 131 34 3 Sand Beach 132 35 3 Battle Rock(Humbug Mtn) 134 36 3 Umpqua Lighthouse (Winchester Bay) 134 36 None North Beach 140 37 3 Seven Devils St Rec Site (Merchants) 142 38 3 Bandon State Natural Area 148 39 3 41
Figure L3 Oregon Tiered Beaches in CIa tsop. Tlllaniook & Lincoln Couiilies
FQrt Stevens
Sunset Ciatsop
Seaside Cannon .-,-
Road's End
Nelscatt D-River SiletzE'ay Neskowin Gleneden Fogarty Creek
Otter Rock Beverly Moolack Agate Nye Yaquina Bay B each Tier Level South Al Dna Seal Rock Gov Patterson
B eachside 42
Eigure 24 Oregon Tiered Bea dies in Lane. Douglas, Coos & Cunv Counties
MO Pons1er J-Ieceta Lane
Dou1as
B ast
Sunset SevenD
Whiskey I
Eanclon Sta
Battle Rock
Buena Vista
Pistol Riv
Ha B each Tier Levei Al Sportha 43 2.5 DISCUSSION
A variety of sources were utilized to collect information needed to determine the
Oregon marine beaches which could potentially have the highest risk ofa swimming
related disease outbreak due to high levels of bacterial indicators. Oregon beaches
were ranked and tiered by utilizing EPA category guidelines of use, available
information, pollution threats, sanitary surveys, monitoring data,exposure
considerations and other factors (as listed in Table 2.1).
2.5.1 Seasonal Listing of Sites
In this study, Oregon beaches are listed as seasonal, primary contact recreational
use. Sites are listed as seasonal (during the peak usage of waters) due to the cold-
annual water temperatures (13 °C) and weather precluding theuse of recreational waters (e.g. storms, winds) during other times. The Oregon Shore Recreational Use
Study (OSRUS) surveyed beach users by means of the mail and determined that the
summer season, Memorial through Labor Day, experiences the highest visitation rates (Shelby & Tokarczyk, 2002). For Oregon, the peak water contact recreational period is June through September (ODEQ, 15 Aug 200!), though surfers utilize the waters during all seasons.
2.5.2 Density and Use of Oregon's Recreational Waters
Oregon waters are used for a variety of recreational activities, the most common being wadinglswimming. Other water contact activities include tidepooling; skim, boogie, and kite boarding; windsurfing; surfing; surf fishing/fishing; kayaking; boating, and jet-skiing. Surfing is the primary activity at Oregon beaches from autumn through spring.
Perhaps due to the ruggedness of the Southern portion of the state and the population distribution, Oregonians use the Southern coastal waters (South of
Newport to California border) with less frequency than the Northern portion. The
Shelby & Tokarczyk (2002) survey found the two immersion uses of swimming and surfing accounted for 17% of North Coast (Astoria to Lincoln City) activities while
5% swam in the South Coast (Coos Bay to Brookings).
Unlike the Oregon Shore Recreational Use Study, this study collected density information based on peak numbers. Both studies found that the beach area encompassed between Road's End (near Lincoln City) and the Yaquina River
(Newport area) had the highest densities. In this study, the Road's End to Yaquina
River section found a peak density of 60 people per mile while the OSRUS findings reported an average of 73 people per mile (Shelby & Tokarczyk, 2002).
Furthermore, the OSRUS agrees with findings in this study that Short Sands Beach
(Oswald West State Park) has the highest density levels.
2.5.3 Monitoring DataFecal Coliform Conversion to E. coli
In this study, in order to utilize previously collected fecal coliform data, a linear regression equation was used to determine E.coli concentrations. The resulting E. coli densities were then compared to the ODEQ' s estuarine standard. The linear 45 regression equation and resulted from Oregon DEQ's adoption ofE.coli as the water quality indicator. Previous to this adoption, ODEQ water quality modelswere based on fecal coliform data. In an effort to reduce costs, ODEQ determined an equation to monotonically assess waters without running dual bacteria analyses (Cude, In press).
The use of a linear regression equation is used to determine needed bacterial concentrations in Oregon, California, and Ohio (Cude, In press; Francy, Myers &
Metzker, 1993; SBCEHS, 2002).
It is a common practice among water quality experts to utilize conversion equations, however, there are some applications that these equations should not be used. Individuals should never substitute another state's bacterial prediction regression equation, as these empirical models are determined by each state's bacterial dataset. Another instance of a poor application would be when predicting bacterial concentrations that are low. For instance, a study by Francy et al., (1993) based the equation on plate bacteria colony counts above 20 whereas Oregon's equation had high variability (poor correlation) in the results below 10 fecalor 8 E. coli /100 mL concentrations (Cude, In press). This studywas concerned withE. coli concentrations above 406 organisms per 100 mL. ODEQ's equation has good correlation (clustering) at this concentration and so there wasno impediment to its application. 2.5.4 Other Factors
Increased development in Otter Rock, Cannon and Newport beachesmay be
putting pressure on public health resources within the communities resulting in
elevated levels of bacteria in these beach waters. Otter Rock, Oregon isa town
nestled on a rock bluff between Newport and Depoe Bay. Population growth
prompted concern about high bacteria levels in the Otter Rock surfzone (Bacon,
2002).
Poor drainage at Otter Rock can cause land runoff and increased marine bacterial
water concentrations. An August 2002 report by theNewport News-Timesreported
some Otter Rock septic systems are failing and E coli was found in the nearby ocean
water (Gallob, 2002). Otter Rock residents are not required to utilize a private STP
located in the community.
2.5.5 Pollution Sources and Sanitary Surveys
STPs factored into the ranking in two separate categories. The significance ofan
STP on bacterial concentrations should not be under-represented when assessing beach sites. Many STPs have multiple effluent pipes originating from thesame hydro-code. To factor in multiple effluent pipes, STP informationwas utilized in pollution threats and sanitary surveys. Furthermore, a California epidemiological study conducted by Haile et al., (1999) correlated illnesses with both proximity to storm drains and concentrations of bacterial indicators. Storm drains may or may not originate from an STP. 47 2.5.6 Comparing Oregon's Beach Selection Criteria with Other States
Washington, California, and Florida continue to use fecal coliform in
combination with the enterococci standard for marine recreational water quality
protection. To assist states in adopting the standards, EPA reviewed the correlations
between swimming associated-illness and levels of E. coli and enterococci. Based
on this review, EPA reaffirmed their support of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (1986) and mandated the adoption of E. coli or enterococci to fulfill
state requirements (USEPA, 2002a). As of 2002, Oregon has not adopted a marine
recreational water quality standard.
Many coastal and Great Lakes states had already begun monitoring recreational
water before EPA mandated regulation. However, with funding provided by the
U.S. government many states decided to re-evaluate, develop, and/or enhance their
coastal monitoring program further.
California, like Florida and Washington, distributed beach assessments to county health departments. However, California's beach site selectionprocess was legislated in an administrative code (California Administrative Code, 1998). Each
California County's Health Officer evaluated beach sites based on the code which required an annual visitation over 50,000 people and an adjacent storm drain
(California Administrative Code, 1998; California Department of Health Services,
2000). The Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Service (2002) selected beaches based on the code as well as the beach meeting one or more of the following criteria: nearby contamination source(s), poor water circulation, seasonal problems, and/or heavy public use.
In identifying and assessing Alaskan coastal beaches, the Department of
Environmental Conservation utilized a survey which was sent to coastal district
contacts and alternatives. Beaches were assessed based on the following
information: types of recreational activity use level, sources of potentialuse, and
land jurisdiction (Shannon & Wilson, 2002). In this study, informal phone and mail
surveys were used to assess coastal recreation waters. Oregon Parks and Recreation
owns all Oregon marine beaches, therefore, the issue of land jurisdiction was not
addressed.
Washington and Oregon solicited input from both public and governmental
authorities regarding beach selection. As of July of 2002, Washington's beach prioritization method had not been determined, but was to be basedupon user density, water quality, point and non-point pollution sources, rainfall, extent of water contact, number of children in the water, and alternatives (Schneider, 2002).
Florida's bacterial monitoring program of recreational waters has been in effect since 1997 due in large part to tourism pressures. However, Florida's 35 coastal counties had no standardization of bacterial monitoring. After revision of legislation defining public bathing places, Florida's Department of Health began to expand bacterial monitoring of coastal waters. The identification of coastal recreation waters started with Florida's Department of Environmental Protection classifications of waters. County Health Departments (CHDs) then examined class II (shellfish) and III (recreation, fish and wildlife) waters. CuD personnel identified publicaccess points and the amount of use at each site. Like Oregon, Florida's prioritization of marine recreational waters were established by using rainfall, historical records, pollution threats, existing bacterial monitoring data, recreational use, economics, and public comment (Carney, 2002).
2.5.7 Tiers Revisited
EPA published a guidance document entitled, Draft-National Beach Guidance and Performance Criteria for Recreational Waters (USEPA, 2001) to assist coastal and Great Lakes states in developing a methodology to select beaches in which to apply ambient water quality standards. This document and the subsequent final copy, National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants used a tiered ranking system of the beaches based on the results of assessment (USEPA,
2002b).
States have discretion in what methodology is utilized to tier beach sites.
However, EPA has suggested the three priority levels of high (1), medium (2), and low (3) tiers. Oregon's tier 1 (n = 19) and 2 (n = 5) beaches have the highest potential to cause a bacterial waterbome illnesses and EPA has suggested a sampling frequency of five times per month during the swimming season (USEPA, 2002b).
However, tier 3 beaches (n = 23) are considered low priority and should be sampled in accordance with other ambient water quality sampling programs (USEPA, 2002b). 50 2.5.8 Oregon 2003 Beach Information
A public news release by Oregon DHS on April 24, 2003 announced 4 coastal
public meetings for review of tiered beaches and the expected frequency of sampling
for beach waters (ODHS, 2003). In this news release, a diversion from EPA
standards on the frequency of sampling for tier 1 and 2 beaches was declared. The
ODHS news release stated that tier 1 beaches would undergo weekly sampling, tier 2
every other week, and tier 3 at least once during the summer (ODHS, 2003). Further
contact with ODEQ provided a revised list of tiered Oregon beaches to be sampled in
2003 (Table 2.7). Water samples will be analyzed for enterococci (Caton, Personal
communication, 14 May 2003).
Compared to the original list generated by this study, Table 2.7 delineates
significant differences in the number of tier 1 (19 vs. 3), tier 2 (5 vs. 24) and to a
lesser extent tier 3 (23 vs. 26) Oregon beaches to be sampled by ODEQ. With the
exception of Oswald West, Cannon and Seaside beaches, all other tier 1 beaches
classified in this study were placed into the 2'tier. The following beaches went
from tier 3 (in this study) to tier 2: Cape Kiwanda, Kiwanda-N, Nelscott, and Road's
End. Beaches reclassified from none to a tier: Neptune (tier 2), Yachats Ocean (tier
2), Arcadia (tier 3), Arizona (tier 3), Bullards (tier 3), Hug Point (tier 3), Manhattan
(tier 3), Nehalem Bay (tier 3), Oregon Dunes (tier 3), Otter Point (tier 3), Samuel H.
Boardman (tier 3), and Umpqua Lighthouse (tier 3). Beachside dropped to tier 3.
ODEQ & ODHS did not list the following beaches: Sunset, Heceta, Seal Rock,
Whiskey Run, Winchuck, Pistol River, and Muriel 0. Ponsler. 51
Table 2.7 Comparison of Oregon Beach Tiers DHS & StudyODEQ Tier Tier Beach Name 1 1 Cannon Beach 1 1 Oswald West State Park 1 1 Seaside Beach, Seaside 2 2 Agate Beach State Wayside 2 2 Alsea River Recreation Area Beach 2 2 Bastendorff Beach 1 2 Beverly Beach State Park 3 2 Cape Kiwanda State Park 1 2 "D" River State Wayside 1 2 Fogarty Creek State Park 1 2 Harris Beach State Park 1 2 Miii Beach 3 2 Neiscott Beach 2 2 Neptune State Park 1 2 Nye Beach 1 2 Oceanside Beach State Wayside 1 2 Ona Beach State Park 1 2 Otter Rock Beach 3 2 Roads End Beach State Wayside 3 2 Robert W. Straub State Park (Kiwanda-N) 1 2 Rockaway Beach 1 2 Siletz Bay Beach, Taft 1 2 South Beach State Park 1 2 Sporthaven Beach 1 2 Sunset Bay State Park o 2 Yachats Ocean Road State Wayside 1 2 Yaquina Bay State Park Beach o 3 Arcadia Beach State Wayside o 3 Arizona Beach 3 3 Bandon Ocean State Wayside 3 3 Battle Rock Wayside 2 3 Beachside State Park 0 3 Bullards Beach State Park 52
Table 2.7 Comparison of Oregon Beach Tiers (Continued) DHS & StudyODEQ Tier Tier Beach Name 3 3 Cape Lookout State Park (Sand Beach) 3 3 Cape Mears, Tillamook 3 3 Fort Stevens State Park 3 3 Gleneden Beach State Wayside 3 3 Gold Beach, S Jetty (Buena Vista) 3 3 Governor Patterson Memorial State Park 3 3 Heceta Beach o 3 Hug Point State Park, Arch Cape o 3 Manhattan Beach State Wayside 3 3 Manzanita Beach 3 3 Meyers Beach (Buena Vista) 3 3 Moolack Beach o 3 Nehalem Bay State Park 3 3 Neskowin Beach State Wayside o 3 Oregon Dunes Nat'l Rec Area o 3 Otter Point State Wayside (Bailey Beach) o 3 Samuel H. Boardman State Park 1 3 Tolovana Wayside (Cannon Beach) 1 3 Twin Rocks (Rockaway Beach) o 3 Umpqua Lighthouse State Park
In this study, sites, types of use, and exposed persons were compiled basedon discussions with special interest groups, locals, and governmental agencies.
Selection of Oregon marine beaches included the compilation of available information, pollution threats, sanitary surveys, monitoring data, and other factors.
Key factors in deciding the site selection criteria included availability and access to records. The number of tier 1 and 2 sites selected (n= 24) was based on limited EPA funding to Oregon. This study collected data to rank the risk of illness associated 53 with Oregon's marine recreational waters.
The following recommendations are made with respect to selecting Oregon beach sites for future bacterial monitoring:
On an annual basis, the results from Oregon marine beach bacterial monitoring
should be used to evaluate tier 1 through 3 sites to verify ODHS & ODEQ
classification. Oregon beaches below tier 1 that repeatedly exceed EPA's
enterococci designated beach standard should be re-classified. In addition,
beaches that are consistently below the standard may be dropped from the
monitoring program.
Recreational surveys which investigate average immersion times, bather load,
beach lengths that bathers utilize, and the amount of marine water contact
recreation activity as a fraction of beach attendance should be performed. These
would provide valuable information to further target Oregon beach selection and
bacterial monitoring.
A concerted effort should be made to inform the public of Oregon's beach
monitoring and site selection process. This can be achieved through print, radio,
internet, and public meeting methods. 54 2.6 REFERENCES
Bacon, L. (2002). Beachhead defense: Oregon takes a new look at how it governs its popular public sands. Register Guard. (http:// www.registerguard.Com/news/2002/11/17/1a.beaches.11 17.html (19 Nov 2002).
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act. (2000). Public Law 106-284. October 10, 2000. Stat 114.870.
California Administrative Code. (1998). Health & safety code section 115875-115915. WAIS Document Retrieval. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- binlwaisgate?WAISdocID=00078428593+0+0+0&WAIS action=retrieve (22 Nov 2002).
California Department of Health Services. (28 March 2000). Regulations for public beaches and ocean water-contact sports areas. Health & safety code 115880, Title 17, Group 10. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwemlbeaches/ ab4l 1_regulations.htm (22 Nov 2002).
Carney, K. (2002). Florida's healthy beaches program quality assurance project plan. Florida Department of Health. Tallahassee, Fl.
Cude, C. (In press). Prediction of fecal coliform from Escherichia coli for modeling Oregon's rivers and streams. JournalofAmerican Water Resources Association, Paper No. 02144.
Federal Register. (2002). Effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the concentrated aquatic animal production point source category; proposed rule. Federal Register 67(177), Proposed Rules, USEPA 40 CFR Part 451, 57872. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAWATER/ 2002/September/Day-i 2/w2 1673 .htm (17 May 2003).
Francy, D.S., Myers, D.N. & Metzker, K.D. (1993). Escherichia coli and fecal coliform bacteria as indicatorsofrecreational water quality. Water-Resource Investigation Report 93-4083. US Dept of Interior, US Geological Survey.
Gallob, J. (2002). Some Otter Rock septic systems failing. Newport News-Times. August 7, 2002. Newport, OR.
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental Managers. (1990). Recommended standards for bathing beaches. Health Education Service. Albany, NY 55 Haile, R.W., Witte, J.S., Gold, M., Cressey, R., McGee, C., Millikan, R.C., Glasser, A., Harawa, N., Ervin, C., Harmon, P., Harper, J., Dermand, J., Alamillo, J., Barrett, K., Nides, M. & Wang, G. (1999). The health effects of swimming in ocean water contaminated by storm drain runoff. Epidemiology, 10 (4), 355-63.
Jagals, P. (1996). Stormwater runoff form typical developed and developing South African urban developments: Definitely not for swimming. Water Science and Technology, 35(11-12), 133-40.
Kennish, M.J. ed. (2001). Practical handbook of marine science. 3t(I Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Oregon Administrative Rules. (2001 ed). Oregon Administrative Rules, Department of Environmental Quality, Water Pollution. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/ rules/OARS_300IOAR_340/340_04 1 .html (Nov 2002).
Oregon Department of Agriculture. (2002). Shellfish Program Bacteria Data 1976- 2001. Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002a). Permitted facilities and 303d streams GIS map application. http://deq 1 2.deq.state.or.us/scripts/ esrimap.dll?name=wql&cmd=map (Nov 2002).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002b). Wastewater permit program select waterbody search parameters. http://www.deq. state.or.us/wq/SISDataJ WaterbodySearch2.asp (Sept 2002).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002c). Search DEQ's 2002 303(d) List Database Selection of Search Criteria web page. http://www.deq.state.or.us/ wqfWQLData/ParameterSearcho2.asp (Aug 2002).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002d). Total maximum daily load documents. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/TMDLs/TMDLs.htm (Aug 2002).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002e). Bacteria water quality data 1976-2001. Portland, OR.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (15 Aug 2001). Bacteria criteria revision, beneficial uses, shellfish & water contact recreation, OAR 340-41. http://www.deq. state.or.us/wq/303dlistlbacteriacriteriarev.pdf (25 May 2003).
Oregon Department of Human Services. (2003). DHS news release: Sampling of beach-water quality to start this summer. http://www.dhs.state.or.us/news/ 2003news/2003-0424.html (13 May 2003). 56 Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. (2001a). Oregon State Parks and Recreation: visiting state parks-find a park. http://www.oregonstateparks.orgl searchpark.php (8 July 2002).
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. (2001b). Oregon State Park camping attendance and day-use visitors. July 2000-2001. Salem, OR.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. (1998). Oregon State Park visitor survey. Salem, OR.
Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services. (2002). Ocean monitoring pro gram: sampling analysis plan. Santa Barbara, CA.
Schneider, L. (2002). Draft-beach environmental assessment, communication, and health [BEACH) program guidance. Department of Ecology, WA.
Shannon & Wilson. (2002). Recreational beach survey. Fairbanks, Alaska.
Shelby, B. & Tokarczyk, J. (2002). Oregon shore recreational use study. Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept. Salem, OR. http://www.prd.state.or.us/images/ pdf/osmp_beach_study.pdf (Sept 2002).
Surfrider. (2002). Beach bacteria data 1999-2002. Surfrider Foundation, Oregon Chapter. Lincoln City, OR.
TopoZone. (2002). The webs topographic map. http://www.topozone.com (Sept 2002).
United States Department of Interior. (1984-1986). Coastal Oregon quadrangle maps. United States Geological Survey.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2002a). Implementation guidance for ambient water qualiiy criteria for bacteria. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-823-B-02-003.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2002b). National beach guidance and required peiformance criteria for grants. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-823-B-02-004.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Draft-national beach guidance and performance criteria for recreation waters. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 823-R-01-005. 57 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Action plan for beaches and recreational waters. Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 600-R-981079.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1986). Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria 1986. Office of Research and Development, Microbiology and Toxicology Division and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC. EPA 440-5-84-002.
Western Regional Climate Center. (2002). Oregon climate summaries. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmor.htmI (Oct 2002).
Zanetell, B .A. (2003). Legislative update: EPA aquaculture effluent limitation comments. Fisheries, 28(1), 7. CHAPTER 3: ASSESSING OREGON'S TWENTY-SIX COASTAL BEACH AREAS FOR RECREATIONAL WATER QUALiTY STANDARDS
3.1 ABSTRACT
Pathogens have been implicated in causing waterborne disease outbreaks of
gastrointestinal, skin, respiratory, and ear infections. Fecal coliforms are utilized by
governmental and environmental agencies to monitor recreational water quality.
Utilizing Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) BEACH Act performance
criteria, Oregon began an assessment of marine recreational waters in 2002.
Information on available information, use, pollution threats, exposure considerations,
economic and development factors, sanitary survey, and monitoring data was used to
rank 57 Oregon immersion beaches. Results of this assessment identified 24 Oregon
beaches of high and medium priority (tier 1 and 2 respectively).
The present study utilizes Oregon beach water samples from 21 high and
medium priority ranked sites, three low priority locations and two sites ranked as
none. The water samples were analyzed forEscherichia coli (E. coli)and
enterococci concentrations by the Oregon Department of Human Services Public
Health Laboratory. Of the water sampled from all 26 beach sites, nine exceeded
EPA's single sample maximum density of 104 enterococci colony forming units
(cfu) per 100 mL with levels ranging from 121 to 4325 most probable number
(MPN)/100 milliLiters (mL). The Oregon beach with the highest exceedance occurred at Otter Rock at South Cove where the enterococci concentration was 4352
MPN/100 mL. A comparison of the 26 sampled beach waters to the Oregon 59
Department of Environmental Quality's (ODEQ) estuarineE.coli standard of 406
organisms/100 mL resulted in two beaches with exceedances. Otter Rock at South
Cove had the highestE.coli concentration at 1850 MPN/100 mL while Road's End
had an E coli density of 771 MPN/100 mL. Results of this study suggest that
adopting EPA's marine enterococci standard in lieu of the ODEQ's estuarine
standard will lead to increased Oregon beach water standard failures. Future Oregon
marine water quality studies should delineate the "no swim" zone around creek
mouths draining onto the beachfront since these often have elevated levels of bacterial indicators, especially after a precipitation event. Furthermore, Oregon
should begin rain event intensive bacterial monitoring of beach sites in order to model bacterial indicator levels for predictive regulatory purposes.
3.2 INTRODUCTION
Coastal and shoreline development, wastewater collection and treatment facilities, septic tanks, animal feeding operations, urban runoff, disposal of human waste from boats, and bathers themselves all contribute to fecal contamination of our nation's recreational waters (USEPA, 2002b). People who swim and recreate in water contaminated with fecal pollution are at an increased risk of contracting gastrointestinal disease, respiratory, ear, eye, and skin infections, meningitis and hepatitis (Cabelli, 1983; Corbett, Rubin, Curry & Kleinbaum, 1993; Rose et al.,
1999; USEPA, 2002b). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set the recreational water quality standards in 1986 but never mandated the states adopt them. With the passage of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH)
Act of 2000, Coastal and Great Lakes states were mandated to adopt new or revised recreational water quality standards to protect the public from fecally-contaminated waters (Beach Act, 2000).
Recreational water quality standards were set by EPA based on epidemiological studies (Cabelli et al., 1979, 1982; Dufour, 1984; Stevenson, 1953). Studies conducted by Stevenson (1953) associated the densities of bacterial indicators in water to swimming-related sickness, while Dufour (1984), determined high correlations of gastroenteritis with Escherichia coli (E. coli) and enterococci densities in freshwater. Cabelli (1983), Fleisher et aT., (1996), and Kay & Fleisher
(1994) determined a higher correlation of swimming-associated sickness with the concentration of enterococci in marine waters. Further studies on marine bacterial water quality have associated fecal coliforms (Corbett et al., 1993; Pneto et al.,
2001), enterococci (Bandarana-yake, Turner, McBride, Lewis & Till, 1995; Fattal,
Peleg-Olevsky, Agursky & Shuval, 1987) and E. coli (Cheung, Chang, Hung &
Kleevens, 1990) to illnesses.
After considerable study, EPA reiterated support of the ambient water quality standards for recreation in Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Bacteria (USEPA, 2002a). Ambient bacteriological water quality standards listed bacteria types, tiered monitoring and methods for enumerating bacterial indicators and assessing beach water quality (USEPA, 1986). EPA ambient water quality criteria for bacterial densities are listed in Table 3.1. 61 Table 3.1 1986 Water Quality Criteria for Bacterial Densities Single SampleMaximum Allowable Density* Full Body Contact Recreation GeometricDesignatedModerateLightInfrequent Mean* Beach Area Use Use Use vlarine Water Enterococci 35 104 158 275 500 reshwater Enterococci 33 61 78 107 151 E. co/i 126 235 298 410 576 * colony forming unitsper 100 milliLiters (mL) = cfu/100 mL (USEPA, 1986)
Using criteria such as those in Table 3.1, governmental and environmental
organizations take regulatory actions, posting advisories or closing access to recreational waters, when water samples have elevated bacterial concentrations.
As of September 2002, Oregon had not adopted marine health-based water quality standards. However, in 1996 Oregon did adopt anE.coli standard for fresh and estuarine waters other than shellfish growing areas. This standard, as listed in
Oregon Administrative Rules 340-041, establishes a geometric mean of 126E. coli organisms (orgs) per 100 milliLiters (mL) and no single sample shall exceed 406E. coli orgs/100 mL of water (OEQC, 2001). Nonetheless, EPA has recommended the use of enterococci as the sole bacterial indicator for marine waters since the 1986 ambient water quality criteria.
Due to factors limiting exposure to fecal contamination of Oregon marine waters, this study hypothesizes that Oregon's coastal waters do not have high concentrations of fecal contamination and therefore will not exceed bacterial standard. One factor limiting both exposure and fecal contamination in Oregon is water temperature. The coastal recreation waters of Oregon average 13 °C (55.4°F) as an annual temperature 62 (NOAA, 2002). This temperature is not conducive to bacterial proliferation and
prohibitive of long water immersion by humans, due to hypothermia. However,
Oregon's coastal waters are used for a variety of recreational activities including
surfing, kite boarding, windsurfing, wading, surf fishing, scuba diving, and
swimming. As many people who engage in these activities use wetsuits, coastal recreation is not limited to the sumn-ier months and a single exposure can be prolonged.
Another factor involves Oregon population statistics and relevant pointsource bacterial discharges. As of the 2000 census, Oregon's population is 35.6 persons per square mile, which is less than half the national average of 79.6 (US Census Bureau,
2000). Consequently, it can be inferred that with fewer people less wastewater systems would introduce bacteria into coastal waters.
Permitees from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program discharge wastewater effluent into fresh and marine waters. Along
Oregon's approximately 360-mile coastline, there are 32 sewage treatment plants
(STPs) with the potential to affect beach waters. Additionally, there are 58 Water
Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) permits along the coast. WPCF licensees do not discharge directly into surface waters although wastes could potentially seep into surrounding waters.
Furthermore, in the decade between 1990 and 2000, Oregon improved water quality as indicated by the unimpaired water list (305-b). The Oregon 305(b) list states the percentage of monitored stream sites with significantly improving trends in water quality has increased from 8% in 1990 to 25% in 2000 (ODEQ, 2000). The same list reports monitored stream sites with significantly declining trends in water quality has decreased from 20% in 1990 to 5% by 2000 (ODEQ, 2000).
A previous study delineated 40 beach sites with a rank of none, 19 high priority
(tier 1), five medium priority (tier 2) and 23 low priority (tier 3) beaches in Oregon.
Twenty-four high and medium (tier 1 & 2) Oregon beaches were selected for bacterial monitoring by an assessment process involving proximity to sources of pollution, exposure considerations and economic and development factors, as described in Chapter 2. However, in this study, data were collected for 26 beaches in
Oregon.
This investigation was initiated to evaluate Oregon's coastal waters for bacterial densities and help alleviate public concern about these levels. This study's assessment of bacterial levels in coastal waters utilizes data collected by ODHS and
ODEQ. Twenty-six Oregon beach sites were assessed for bacteria concentrations, temperature and salinity.
The research questions investigated in this study were:
What are the enterococci andE.coli levels present in the waters of 26 Oregon
beaches?
Do any of the 26 beach waters have bacterial indicators that exceed the single
sample maximum density for EPA's marine enterococci or ODEQ'sE.coli water
quality standards? .How would the adoption of EPA's marine enterococci standard over Oregon
DEQ' s estuarine standard affect regulatory actions?
3.3 METHODS
In October 2002, ODEQ collected three water samples at each of the 26 beaches
in Oregon. Figure 3.1 is an example of the three monitoring locations at Cannon
Beach, Oregon. Water samples were taken for eighteen beach sites between October
1 and 3, 2002. The remaining sites (n8) were sampled October 21 through 23,
2002. Figure 3.2 graphically displays the sampled Oregon beaches by tier level.
Sampling guidelines can be located in ODEQ's Oregon Coast Beach Monitoring
Quality Assurance Plan (2002) which is in accordance with EPA approved methods
(USEPA, 2002b). As recommended by EPA, grab samples were collected at a depth of 0.5 to 1 meter (USEPA, 2002b). Briefly, samples were collected in sterilized
Nalgene bottles. After collection, all water samples were placed in an ice filled cooler and delivered to the ODHS Public Health Laboratory where analysis began within 30 hours.
On-site marine water measurements included water temperature and salinity using YSI Model #30/10 SCT meters (Argent, Redmond, WA). Salinity and temperature measurements followed approved ODEQ methods (ODEQ, 2001).
Precipitation amounts and air temperatures for the sampling dates were obtained from the Oregon Climate Service (2003). Sample E. coli concentrations were analyzed using Standard Method 9223 B,
Colilert (APHA, 1998; IDDEX, Westbrook, ME). Enterolert (IDDEX, Westbrook,
ME) was used to analyze the enterococci concentrations of the water samples.
Results were reported in most probable number (MPN) per 100 mL. Water samples were diluted by 10 and incubated in Quanti-tray 2000 wells (IDDEX, Westbrook,
ME) which provided bacteria concentration ranges from 0 to 24,190 MPN/100 mL.
Quality assurance and quality control procedures adhered to ODEQ methods
(APHA, 1998; ODEQ, 1998, 2001). Ten percent of the samples underwent duplicate analyses. Additionally, a trip blank was tested after each sampling event.
The frequency of sampling precluded the calculation of the geometricmean which is based on a minimum of five samples over a thirty-day period. However, each single sample was compared to EPA's designated beach area, single sample maximum allowable density for marine enterococci and ODEQ's single sample estuarine E. coli standard. Figure 3. 1Sample Points Along Cannon Beach, Oregon
Clatsqp
Water Sample Points Cannon B 'ach cola Creek Haystack Ro ck Area of Detail Figure 3.2 Oregon Sampled Beaches by Tier Levels
Seasicle Clatsopj I )
Oswald West Rockaway
Oceansid\/ Tii1amo1 \Tn+I 1+ O
Kiwanda-N
Sunset Ba
D-Rive Road's End rNelscott r-Siletz Bay * Fogarty Creek Otter Rock 4-Beverly Agate
p orthaven Yaquina Bay B each Tier Level South______A' Ona Lincoln Alsea ç) None Yachats 0 3.4 RESULTS
Table 3.2 lists the concentrations of bacterial indicators at Oregon beaches.
Three Oregon beaches including Otter Rock at Marine Gardens, Beachside and
Winchuck were scheduled to be monitored but were not sampled due to difficulties encountered. However, three tier 3 beaches, Nelscott, Kiwanda Beach-North and
Road's End, which are considered low priority and not scheduled for bacterial monitoring were sampled. Additionally, Neptune and Yachats Ocean Road which were ranked as "none" were sampled while Otter Rock at South Cove had only two water samples taken instead of three.
Table 3.2 Bacterial Densities in Oregon Beach Waters Sampled in October 2002 E. Tier coli Enterococci
LevelBeach NameSample Point (MPNI100 mL) Otter Rock atAgainst head 1850 4352 South Cove 0.2 Km S stairs <10 <10 0.2 Km S of path, left Fogarty rock <10 10 1 Creek 0.2 Km N of path 63 41 0.lKmNofpath <10 10 Taft-300 mW of turnaround 30 10 1 Siletz Bay @Taft turnaround 41 <10 Siletz Bay Park 161 134 200 m S restroom 10 <10 1 D River @D-River mouth 52 121 Nofparkinglot 31 10 @Southern Bluff 20 10 1 Ona @Tidal Creek 134 369 North <10 <10 Table 3.2 Bacterial Densities in Oregon Beach Waters Sampled in October 2002 (Continued) Tier E. coliEnterococci Beach Level Name Sample Point (MPNIJOO mL) 0.2kmSof ramp <10 <10 1 Beverly 0.2 km W of creek mouth 31 20 0.lkmNoframp <10 <10 @restroom 20 <10 1 Sporthaven@metal access ramp 63 <10 @Beachside Hotel 10 <10 South Cove- 140 m N bluff <10 81 1 Mill South of Seastack@ creek 10 31 NC at access point <10 <10 NC@ tidal creek 185 173 1 Harris South Cove 10 <10 SouthBeachTrail <10 <10 South Cove 41 <10 1 Sunset Bay@restroom <10 <10 North beach access <10 <10 @Broadway turnaround 10 20 12th 1 Seaside Ave 74 10 @UAve <10 <10 @Ecola Creek mouth 265 708 1 Cannon @Ecola Court outfall <10 30 @Haystack Rock <10 <10 @parking access 10 <10 1 Oceanside @headland 10 <10 250mSouth@seep <10 <10 6th @creek S Ave 288 369 1 RockawayS 1st Ave 10 <10 N6thAve <10 <10 70
Table 3.2 Bacterial Densities in Oregon Beach Waters Sampled in October 2002 (Continued) Tier E. coliEnterococci I
Level Beach Name Sample Point (MPNIIOO mL) @35thStCreek 98 3255 33M 3 Nelscott 100 m N of St 10 10 @37thStreet access 10 10 @state park creek 771 573 3 Road's End 400 m S of state park <10 20 200 m N of state park <10 0 @Cummins Creek 10 <10 None Neptune @Middle 10 31 South <10 <10 Otter Rock at 1 Marine Gardens Unsampled 2 Beachside 2 Winchuck
3.4.1E.co/i Results
E. coli concentrations for coastal Oregon waters ranged from <10 to 1850
MPN/100 mL. Each of the three samples from Oswald West, Yaquina Bay, Nye,
Agate, Bastendorff, KiwandaNorth, South, Alsea, and Yachats Ocean beaches had
E. co/i densities equal to or below 10 MPN/100 mL (data not shown).
Comparing theE.co/i results to the Oregon DEQ's 406 orgs/100 mL single maximum standard resulted in two beaches (8% of sampled beaches) with exceedances, Road's End (771 MPN/100 mL) and Otter Rock at South Cove (1850
MPN/i00 mL). Figure 3.3 displays theE.coli exceedances at Oregon beach sites. 71 3.4.2 Enterococci Results
Enterococci concentrations ranged from 0 (Road's End) to 4352 (Otter Rock at
South Cove)MPN/100mL. Each of the three samples from Oswald West, Yaquina
Bay, Nye, Agate, Bastendorff, KiwandaNorth, South, Alsea, and Yachats Ocean beaches had enterococci concentrations less thanor equal to 10MIPN/100mL (data
not shown).
Nine of the 26 Oregon beach sites (35%) exceeded the EPA's marine designated beach single sample maximum standard of 104 cfu/100 mL. A sample point at
Cannon (708MPN/100mL), Rockaway (369MPN/100mL), Nelscott (3255
MPN/100mL), Road's End (573MPN/100mL), Harris (173MPN/100mL), Otter
Rock at South Cove (4352MPN/100mL), Siletz Bay (134MPN/100mL), D- River
(121MPN/100mL) and Ona (369MPN/100mL) beaches exceeded EPA's enterococci standard. Figure 3.3 displays Oregon beach sites with enterococci exceedances. 72
Figure 3.3 Oregon Beach Sites with B. coli and Bnterococci Exceedancés
Road's End
ClatsoJ itJ'Nelscott D-River / SiletzBay
Ro
Tillamook] ( QftRock-South Cove
Lincoln
Ona
Lincoln
Lane
ID0j
Coos
Indicator Standard Exceeded F. coil & Entero cocci Enterococci. Areaof Detail 73 3.4.3 Indicator Comparison to Regulatory Action
As of 2002, Oregon has not passed a law which will close a beach if indicator
concentrations are above the bacterial standards. However, advisories and warnings
can be issued. The number of beach advisories and re-sampling events would
increase by seven (making the total nine) when applying EPA's marine enterococci
criteria in lieu of ODEQ' sE.coli estuarine standard.
3.5 DISCUSSION
This study utilized bacterial data collected from 26 Oregon beach sites and compared it to EPA' s single sample designated beach standard for marine recreational water and Oregon DEQE.coli estuarine standard. The waters of nine
Oregon beaches exceeded either s marine enterococci or ODEQ' sE.coli single sample maximum standards for recreational waters. Two beaches, Otter Rock at
South Cove and Road's End exceeded both the EPA and ODEQ water quality standards. Seven Oregon beaches including Cannon, Rockaway, Nelscott, D-River,
Siletz Bay, Ona, and Hams exceeded only EPA's marine enterococci standard.
Due to the sampling time frame (October) utilized in this study, bather loadwas not an issue for evaluation and thus the most probable reasons for Oregon beaches to exceed bacterial standards are creeks transporting bacterial land pollution, rainfall effects, and the proximity to sewage treatment plants (STPs) and other pointsources. 74 3.5.1 Creeks Transporting Bacterial Pollution
Seven of the nine (78%) Oregon beaches including D-River, Nelscott, Ona,
Road's End, Harris, Cannon and Rockaway exceeded a bacterial standard at the sample point where fresh and marine water converge. These seven monitoring sites indicate bacterial pollution is potentially being transported to the beach via creek water. Siletz Bay exceeded EPA's marine enterococci standard at a sample point
0.15 miles southwest of Schooner Creek, which has the Lincoln City STP located approximately 0.70 miles northeast of the bacterial monitoring site. Tidal influence may also be contributing to the Siletz Bay bacterial count. Cheung, Chang, & Hung
(1991) established the influence of tides on bacterial concentration in a Hong Kong study, noting hourly fluctuations of E. coli levels based on tide. Furthermore, the
Tillamook County beach (Rockaway) and Lincoln County beaches of Road's End,
Nelscott, D-River and Siletz Bay, may be negatively influenced by agricultural operations within the area. Wastes from agricultural activities including confined animal feeding operations and other animal feeding operations can be transported to marine waters during rain events (Dwight, Semenza, Baker & Olson, 2002; Fujoika,
2001).
3.5.2 Rainfall Effects on Bacterial Concentrations
Otter Rock at South Cove, Siletz Bay and D-River were experiencing rainfall when the technicians sampled the beach waters. Transport of bacterial land 75 contaminants occurs during a rain event (Crowther, Kay & Wyer, 2001; Dwight et
al., 2002).
Otter Rock is located on a rock headland which has little percolation ability in
which to filter out bacteria prior to entry to the ocean (Figure 3.4). During a rain
event, water cascades from Otter Rock into South Cove. Additionally, many of the
homes at Otter Rock have septic systems and a recent article notedsome of these
systems were failing (Gallob, 2002). Furthermore, a Florida research group, Lipp,
Farrah & Rose (2001) determined water monitoring stations with elevated bacterial concentrations were in areas of high septic system density. It is possible that the rain combined with failing septic systems produced the elevated bacteria levels observed
in this study. Furthermore, birds and seals are prevalent at Otter Rock and may contribute to this area's fecal contamination. 76 3.5.3 Proximity to Sewage Treatment Plants and Other Point Sources
Sewage treatment plants (STPs) release effluent into marine and fresh waters.
While STP effluent is treated to reduce the amount of bacteria going into receiving
waters, treatment does not eradicate all of the bacteria and much of the viruses
survive the process. Furthermore, during periods of heavyuse or rainfall a STP is
allowed to bypass and discharge wastes without treatment.
Within a five mile radius, seven of the nine (78%) Oregon beach sites with
bacterial water quality exceedances have a STP effluent pipe. Cannon Beach, Siletz
Bay, and D-River have one STP within a five mile radius. Two STPsare located within five miles of Harris, Rockaway, Nelscott, and Otter Rock at South Cove. The
Cannon Beach STP releases wastewater into Ecola Creek, so it was nota surprise that a sample at the mouth of this creek exceeded both bacterial standards.
Additionally, four Oregon beaches had other point source dischargers which could have impacted water bacterial levels. Harris and Rockaway beaches have two dischargers within a mile of the beach sites while Siletz Bay and Nelscott haveone permitee allowed to discharge within the area.
It is postulated that the combination of rain effects, proximity of two STPs, failing septic systems, and animal contributions were factors in the elevated bacteria levels (1850 E. coli MPN/100 niL, 4352 enterococci) in Otter Rock at South Cove water. The water at Nelscott beach had a very high enterococci concentration (3255
MPN/100 mL) which may be explained, in part, by two STPs and 1 pointsource permitee discharging within the area. 77 3.5.4 Storage Effects on Bacterial Samples
Due to the duration of storage of beach water samples, the number and magnitude of Oregon marine beach water bacterial exceedances may have been underestimated in this study. The water samples were iced, shipped to the Public
Health Laboratory and analyzed for bacteria within 30 hours of collection. This is not in accordance with EPA methods of collection and initiation of analysis of less than 6 hours. Studies indicate that bacteria samples stored longer than 6 hours are significantly altered with decreases in bacterial concentration more frequent than increases (Guardabassi, Gravesen, Lund, Bagge & Dalsgaard, 2002; Mates, 1992;
McDaniels et al., 1985; PHLS, 1955). However, ODEQ utilizes the exception in the
Microbiological Methodsmanual, where samples "mailed in... {...] [can] be held up to 30 hours" (USEPA, 1978). The main ODHS laboratory is in Portland, approximately 1.5 to 2 hours from the northern portion of the coast. With a 360 mile coastline and no coastal laboratories that are certified for bacterial analysis, ODEQ is constrained by time. In the future to alleviate this problem, ODEQ will be using mobile laboratories along the coastline.
3.5.5 Enterolert Analysis
Temporal bacterial variability and the speed of regulatory actions are two important factors to consider when deciding on a method for bacterial analysis. The
Enterolert product utilizes defined substrate technology, similar to Colilert, and is currently listed in the Federal Register (2001) for proposed rules on ambient water analytical methods. A study conducted by Budnick, Howard & Mayo (1996)
evaluated the enumeration of Enterolert and observed an increase in sensitivity and specificity compared to the enterococci membrane filtration method. A similar
study, found no significant difference between the membrane filtration and
Enterolert methods (Fricker & Fricker, 1996). In a Swedish drinking and bathing water study, the results of the defined substrate technology, utilized by both Colilert and Enterolert, were comparable to membrane filtration and multiple tube fermentation methods (Eckner, 1998). For Oregon recreational water quality managers, the speed (24 hours), compactness, and lower cost associated with the
Enterolert test is a significant factor in choosing a method. However, recent developments call into question the precision and accuracy of the Enterolert test. In a Lake Michigan study, researchers were unable to verify 50% of the colonies which fluoresced (tested positive) in the Enterolert kit (Kinzelman, Ng, Jackson, Gradus &
Bagley, 2003). This study did not investigate the specificity of the Enterolert test and therefore cannot postulate on the accuracy of the method, however, it is recommended that further studies evaluate the false positive rate of Enterolert as the results of this test influence regulatory outcomes.
3.5.6E.coli versus Enterococci
EPA did not adopt the use of E. coli for marine waters (USEPA, 1986) but rather relies on the enterococci standard. However, ODEQ had lobbied ODHS personnel for the adoption of theE.coli estuarine standard for beach bacterial monitoring 79 (Pettit, Personal correspondence, August, 2002). ODEQ employees argued that
NPDES permitees were incapable of meeting the enterococci standard and wanted to
analyze forE.coli as it was already the freshwater water contact recreation indicator
(Pettit & Caton, Personal correspondence, August, 2002). A comparison using
ODEQ'sE.coli estuarine standard is justified considering beaches in Oregon. Many children play in the creeks and rivers on Oregon's beaches because the water temperature is warmer and there is no risk of waves. Often a grab water sample is taken at the confluence of the ocean with a river or creek mouth. This isan area of lower salinity where it is believed that E. coli have better survival. However, in considering the two indicator species, Kinzelman et al., (2003) determined thatE. coli and enterococci results could not be used interchangeably in freshwater regulatory situations. There was less than 70% correlation between the two in the number of beach closures (Kinzelman et al., 2003). With increasing budget constraints in Oregon, ODEQ and ODHS have agreed to analyze marine recreational water for only enterococci, thereby reducing cost by eliminating theE.coli test. As
EPA has promulgated the marine recreational water enterococci standard thisseems a wise choice. Unfortunately, this study indicates that enterococci exceedances are more prevalent in Oregon marine recreational waters, therefore, savings will probably be offset by repeat sampling and advisory postings. 3.5.7 Regulatory Action Results Compared with Other Studies
This study is similar to bacterial indicator comparison studies conducted in
Wisconsin, New York, and California (Kinzelman et al., 2003; Noble, Moore,
Leecaster, McGee & Weisberg, 2003; Nuzzi & Burhans, 1997). Each of these
studies compared indicator species standards to regulatory action and noted
enterococci exceeded water quality standards most often (Kinzelman et al., 2003;
Noble et al., 2003; Nuzzi & Burhans, 1997). Likewise, this study, based in Oregon's coastal waters, found more exceedances when the EPA' s marine designated beach enterococci standard was utilized than ODEQ' s less stringent E. coli standard.
3.5.8 Oregon Department of Agriculture Monitoring
The Oregon Dept of Agriculture (ODA) does monitor some of the beaches utilized in this study for fecal contamination. However, ODA does not evaluate the bacterial data for exceedances of the ambient recreational water quality standards.
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program and Food and Drug Administration promulgate fecal coliform standards for shellfish growing areas and ODAuses these standards for comparison. ODA standards are based on ingestion of bacteria from fecally-polluted shellfish (which bioaccumulate toxins). The standards for water samples from a shellfish area are very low, with median concentrations of 14 fecal coliform orgs/100 mL, and no more than 10% of samples exceeding 43 orgs/100 mL
(ODEQ, 15 Aug 2001), in comparison to recreational water quality criteria. FII 3.6 CONCLUSION
It was hypothesized that there would not be exceedances of recreational water
quality standards in Oregon based on low water temperature, relatively few STPs,
population statistics, and improved water quality. However, several beach waters
were found to exceed both the EPA's marine enterococci standard of 104 cfu/100
mL and ODEQ's fresh and estuarineE.co/i standard of406orgs/100 mL.E. co/i
bacteria levels ranged from <10 to1850 MPN/100mL while enterococci
concentrations ranged from 0 to4352 MPN/100mL. The site with the highest
densities of both E. coli and enterococci was Otter Rock at South Cove with a single
sample maximum of1850 MPN/100mL forE.co/i and4352for enterococci.
Several factors that may explain these exceedances include creeks transporting bacterial land pollution, rainfall effects, and the proximity to STPs and other point
sources.
This study determined the bacterial indicator species, enterococci, which is the
EPA's marine designated beach standard, would have more regulatory actions resulting from exceedances of this standard than if ODEQ' sE.co/i standard was utilized in Oregon's coastal recreation waters. 3.7 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made with respect to Oregon recreational water quality:
EPA's marine enterococci standard should be adopted. As a recreational water
quality indicator Cabelli (1983) correlated illness rates with different bacterial
indicators and a stronger association occurred between enterococci densities in
marine water and illness. Prudent public health suggests it is better to be more
protective (i.e. close beaches from too high an incorrect result) then risk the
chance of morbidity.
The "no-swim" zone around creek mouths draining onto the beach front should
be delineated and an advisory perpetually posted in this area. This would allow
only portions of a beach to undergo regulatory action when elevated bacterial
densities are present, thereby providing open beach sections for the public to
enjoy.
Predictive tools (water quality models) should be developed. This requires
extensive monitoring of beach waters for bacteria and will help ODEQ & ODHS
to know when regulatory actions are needed. It is suggested that an easily
understood, yet adaptable model, such as a rainfall-based alert curve be
developed first.
Public educational awareness programs should start. The public should be
educated on which Oregon beach sites are undergoing monitoring, what
concentrations of bacterial indicators may cause sickness, how to prevent swimming-associated illness, which regulatory agency should be advised if an
outbreak occurs, and how to get information on Oregon beach water quality.
Detailed inventories of pollution sources and methods to eliminate them should
be undertaken at beach sites with extreme exceedances of water quality standards
(Otter Rock at South Cove and Nelscott) or persistent pollution problems. These
beach sites should be posted immediately upon test results and an investigation
started forthwith.
Water quality impacts from the amount of precipitation and proximity to creeks
and point sources should be investigated further at all of Oregon's beaches.
Recreational surveys which investigate average immersion times, bather load, beach lengths that bathers utilize, and the amount of marine water contact recreation activity as a fraction of beach attendance should be performed, particularly at Oregon beaches exceeding 10 miles in length (North and Bandon
State). These surveys would provide valuable information to further target
Oregon beach selection and bacterial monitoring. 3.8 REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. (1998). Standard methods for the examination ofwater and wastewater,20thedition. Washington, DC.
Bandarana-yake, D.R., Turner, S.J., McBride, G.B., Lewis, G.D. & Till, D.G. (1995). Health effects of bathing at selected New Zealand marine beaches. New Zealand.
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act. (2000). Public Law 106-284. October 10, 2000. Stat 114.870.
Budnick G.E., Howard R.T. & Mayo D.R. (1996). Evaluation of Enterolert for enumeration of enterococci in recreational waters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 62(10): 3881-3884.
Cabelli, V..J. (1983). Health effects criteria for marine recreational water. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. EPA-600/ 1-80-031.
Cabelli, V.J., Dufour, A.P., McCabe, L.J. & Levin, M.A. (1982). Swimming- associated gastroenteritis and water quality. American JournalofEpidemiology, 115(4), 606-16.
Cabelli V.J., Dufour A.P., Levin M.A., McCabe, L.J. & Haberman, P.W. (1979). Relationship of microbial indicators to health effects at marine bathing beaches. American JournalofPublic Health, 69, 690-6.
Cheung, W.H.S., Chang, K.C.K. & Hung, R.P.S. (1991). Variations in microbial indicator densities in beach waters and health-related assessment of bathing water quality. Epidemiology and Infection, 106, 329-44.
Cheung, W.H.S., Chang, K.C.K., Hung, R.P.S. & Kleevens, J.W.L. (1990). Health effects of beach-water pollution in Hong Kong. Epidemiology and Infection, 105, 139-62.
Corbett, S.J., Rubin, G.L., Curry, G.K. & Kleinbaum, D.G. (1993). The health effects of swimming at Sydney beaches. American JournalofPublic Health, 83(12), 1701-06.
Crowther, J., Kay, D. & Wyer, M.D. (2001). Relationships between microbial water quality and environmental conditions in coastal recreational waters: the Fylde Coast, UK. Water Research, 35(17), 4029-38. Dufour, A.P. (1984). Health Effects Criteria for Fresh Recreational Waters. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600- 1-84-004.
Dwight, R.H., Semenza, J.C., Baker, D.B. & Olson, B.H. (2002). Association of urban runoff with coastal water quality in Orange County, California. Water Environment Research, 74(1), 82-90.
Eckner, K.F. (1998) Comparison of membrane filtration and multiple-tube fermentation by the Colilert and Enterolert methods for detection of waterborne coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli, and enterococci used in drinking and bathing water quality monitoring in southern Sweden. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 64(8), 3079-83.
Fattal, B., Peleg-Olevsky, E., Agursky, T. & Shuval, H.I. (1987). The association between seawater pollution as measured by bacterial indicators and morbidity among bathers at Mediterranean bathing beaches of Israel. Chemosphere, 16(2/3), 565-70.
Federal Register. (2001). Guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants; analytical methods for biological pollutants in ambient water; proposed rule, Federal Register, 66(169), Proposed Rules, USEPA 40 CFR 136, 45811
Fleisher, J.M., Kay, D., Salmon, R.L., Jones, F., Wyer, M.D. & Godfree A.F. (1996). Marine waters contaminated with domestic sewage: non enteric illnesses associated with bather exposure in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health, 86(9), 1228-34.
Fricker, E.J. & Fricker, C.R. (1996). Use of defined substrate technology and a novel procedure for estimating the numbers of enterococci in water. Journalof Microbiological Methods, 27, 207-10.
Fujioka, R.S. (2001). Monitoring coastal marine waters for spore-forming bacteria of faecal and soil origin to determine point from non-point source pollution. Water Science & Technology, 47(7), 18 1-88.
Gallob, J. (2002). Some Otter Rock septic systems failing. Newport News-Times. August 7, 2002. Newport, OR.
Guardabassi, L, Gravesen, J., Lund, C., Bagge, L. & Dalsgaard, A. (2002). Delayed incubation as an alternative method to sample storage for enumeration of E. coli and culturable bacteria in water. Water Research, 36(18), 4655-8. Kay, D. & Fleisher, J.M. (1994). Predicting likelihood of gastroenteritis fromsea bathing: results from randomized exposure. Lancet, 244(8927), 905-10.
Kinzelman, J., Ng, C., Jackson, E., Gradus, S. & Bagley, R. (2003). Enterococcias indicators of Lake Michigan recreational water quality: comparison of two methodologies and their impacts on public health regulatory events. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 69(1), 92-6.
Lipp, E.K., Farrah, S.A. & Rose, J.B. (2001). Assessment and impact of microbial fecal pollution and human enteric pathogens in a coastal community. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(4), 286-93.
Mates, A. (1992). Effect of seawater storage on coliforms, faecal coliforms and Escherichia coli. Microbios, 70(282) 43-8.
McDaniels, A.E., Bordner, R.H., Gartside, P.S., Hines, J.R., Brenner, K.P. & Rankin, C.C. (1985). Holding effects on coliform enumeration in drinking water samples. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 50(4), 755-62.
National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration. (2002). Monterrey map. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Monterey/sstmaps/sst2.gif (Sept 2002).
Noble, R.T., Moore, D.F., Leecaster, M.K., McGee, C.D. & Weisberg, S.B. (2003). Comparison of total coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococcus bacterial indicator response for ocean recreational water quality testing. Water Research, 37, 1637-1643.
Nuzzi, R. & Burhans, R. (1997). The use of enterococcus and coliform in characterizing bathing-beach waters. JournalofEnvironmental Health, 60(1), 16-23.
Oregon Climate Service. (2003). Zone 1 climate data archives, daily precipitation. http://www.ocs.orst.edu/pubjtp/climate_data/daily/prec/ (March 2003).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002). Oregon coast beach monitoring quality assurance plan. Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2001). Laboratory methodof operations manual. Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (15 Aug 2001). Bacteria criteria revision. Beneficial uses, shellfish & water contact recreation, OAR 340-41. http:Ilwww .deq.state.or.us/wq/3O3dlist/bacteriacriteriarev.pdf (25 May 2003). Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2000). Oregon's 2000 water quality status assessment report section 305(b) report. Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (1998). Laboratory quality assurance manual. Salem, OR.
Oregon Environmental Quality Commission. (2001). Oregon Administrative Rules, Water Pollution, OAR 340-041. Oregon Secretary of State, Salem, OR.
Prieto, M.D., Lopez, B., Juanes, J.A., Revilla, J.A., Liorca, J. & Delgado-Rodriguez, M. (2001). Recreation in coastal waters: health risks associated with bathing in sea water. Journal Epidemiology & Community Health, 55, 442-7.
Public Health Laboratory Service. (1955). The effect of storageon the coliform and bacterium coli counts of water samples. JournalofHygiene, 53, 559-57 1.
Rose, J.B., Atlas, R.M., Gerba, C.P., Gilchrist, M.J.R.,. LeChevallier, M.W., Sobsey, M.D., Yates, M.V., Cassell, G.H. & Tiedje, J.M. (1999). Microbial pollutants in our nation's water: environmental and public health issues. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
Stevenson, A.H. (1953). Studies of bathing water quality and health. American Journal of Public Health Association, 43, 529-3 8.
United States Census Bureau. (2000). State & county quickfacts-Oregon. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfdlstates/4 1000.html (06 Sep 2002).
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2002a). Implementation guidance for ambient water quality criteria for bacteria. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-823-B-02-003.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2002b). National beach guidance and required peiformance criteria for grants. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-823-B-02-004.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1986). Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria 1986. Office of Research and Development, Microbiology and Toxicology Division and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC. EPA-440/5-84-002.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1978). Microbiological methods for monitoring the environment water and wastes. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600-8-78-017. CHAPTER 4: GENERAL CONCLUSION
This study utilizes EPA criteria to evaluate Oregon marine beach sites in order to comply with BEACH Act statutes. EPA and ODEQ bacterial water quality criteria are utilized to assess 26 Oregon marine beach sites. The application of federal and state standards to assess risk of increased marine water bacteria levels for public health protection is discussed.
In the first phase of this study, Oregon beach sites were selected basedon use, state water quality reports, pollution threats, sanitary surveys, monitoring data, exposure considerations, and public concerns. From this assessment process, the beach waters with the highest potential for swimming-associated illnesseswere chosen to monitor for bacterial indicators. Before this investigation, Oregon
Department of Human Services did not have a list of beach sites, nor had they collected any beach specific information. The evaluation of this beach specific information is necessary to justify site selection to the Oregon public and EPA.
Additionally, this research is valuable in providing information about potential beach areas with elevated concentrations of bacteria. It may be utilized by ODEQ to establish stricter standards on wastewater effluent release and investigate persistent or extreme pollution problems.
This research joins marine bacterial indicator comparison studies undertaken in
New York and California, as well as, a Wisconsin freshwater study. Findings, while based on limited data, indicate that EPA' s marine enterococci water quality standard of 104 cfu/100 mL will result in more marine recreational regulatory actions in Oregon than if ODEQ's fresh and estuanne water E. coli standard of 406
orgs/lOOmL was adopted.
Future studies should evaluate the methodology that Oregon DHS & ODEQ
employed to determine the 2003 tier levels of Oregon beaches. The results from
2003 bacterial monitoring of Oregon beach sites should be used to verify tier 1
through 3 sites to check for reclassification. Oregon beaches below tier 1 that
repeatedly exceed adopted bacterial standards should be re-categorized.
Furthermore, beaches that are consistently below the adopted bacterial standardmay
be dropped from the program.
More information is needed on coastal water recreation in Oregon. A survey on
average immersion times, bather load, and the amount of marine water contact time
as a fraction of Oregon beach attendance is necessary. In order to target bacterial
monitoring at Oregon beaches, information on the length of the beach that bathers
utilize would also be helpful.
Future studies should delineate the "no swim" zone (the area with bacterial
densities above EPA's marine standard) around creek mouths draining onto the beachfront. EPA is disseminating and encouraging states to utilize models for
predictive regulatory action purposes, therefore the impact of rainfall, point andnon- point sources, mixing and transport processes and pathogen sourceson water bacterial levels should be assessed at Oregon beach sites. Site specific predictive models would assist Oregon regulators with pre-emptive regulatory actions at marine beaches as opposed to delayed (24-48 hours) notification thatoccurs due to methods of bacterial analysis. 91 BiBLIOGRAPHY
American Public Health Association. (1998). Standard methods for the examination 20th ofwater and wastewater, edition. Washington, DC.
Bacon, L. (2002). Beachhead defense: Oregon takes a new look at how it governs its popular public sands. Register Guard. (http:// www.registerguard.Com/news/2002/11/17/1a.beaches.1117.htm1 (19 Nov 2002).
Balarajan, R., Raliegh, V.S., Yuen, P., Wheeler, D., Machin, D. & Cartwright, R. (1991). Health risks associated with bathing in sea water. British Medical Journal, 303, 1444-5.
Bandarana-yake, D.R., Turner, S.J., McBride, G.B., Lewis, G.D. & Till, D.G. (1995). Health effectsofbathing at selected New Zealand marine beaches. New Zealand.
Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act. (2000). Public Law 106-284. October 10, 2000. Stat 114.870.
Borrego, J.J. & Figueras, M.J. (1997). Microbiological quality of natural waters. Micro biologia Sem, 13, 413-26.
Budnick G.E., Howard R.T. & Mayo D.R. (1996). Evaluation of Enterolert for enumeration of enterococci in recreational waters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 62(10): 3881-3884.
Cabelli, V.J. (1983). Health effects criteria for marine recreational water. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. EPA-600/1 -80-031
Cabelli, V.J., Dufour, A.P., McCabe, L.J. & Levin, M.A. (1982). Swimming- associated gastroenteritis and water quality. American JournalofEpidemiology, 115(4), 606-16.
Cabelli V.J., Dufour A.P., Levin M.A., McCabe, L.J. & Haberman, P.W. (1979). Relationship of microbial indicators to health effects at marine bathing beaches. American JournalofPublic Health, 69, 690-6.
California Administrative Code. (1998). Health & safety code section 115875-115915. WAIS Document Retrieval. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=00078428593+0+0+0&WAlSaction=retrieve (22 Nov 2002). California Department of Health Services. (28 March 2000). Regulations for public beaches and ocean water-contact sports areas. Health & safety code 115880, Title 17, Group 10. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwemlbeaches/ ab4l ljegulations.htm (22 Nov 2002).
Carney, K. (2002). Florida's healthy beaches program quality assurance project plan. Florida Department of Health. Tallahassee, Fl.
Cheung, W.H.S., Chang, K.C.K. & Hung, R.P.S. (1991). Variations in microbial indicator densities in beach waters and health-related assessment of bathing water quality. Epidemiology and Infection, 106, 329-44.
Cheung, W.H.S., Chang, K.C.K., Hung, R.P.S., & Kleevens, J.W.L. (1990). Health effects of beach-water pollution in Hong Kong. Epidemiology and Infection, 105, 139-62.
Corbett, S.J., Rubin, G.L., Curry, G.K. & Kleinbaum, D.G. (1993). The health effects of swimming at Sydney beaches. American JournalofPublic Health, 83(12), 1701-06.
Crowther, J., Kay, D. & Wyer, M.D. (2001). Relationships between microbial water quality and environmental conditions in coastal recreational waters: the Fylde Coast, UK. Water Research, 35(17), 4029-38.
Cude, C. (In press). Prediction of fecal coliform from Escherichia coli for modeling Oregon's rivers and streams. JournalofAmerican Water Resources Association, Paper No. 02144.
Dufour, A.P. (1984). Health Effects Criteria for Fresh Recreational Waters. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600- 1-84-004.
Dwight, R.H., Semenza, J.C., Baker, D.B. & Olson, B.H. (2002). Association of urban runoff with coastal water quality in Orange County, California. Water Environment Research, 74(1), 82-90.
Eckner, K.F. (1998). Comparison of membrane filtration and multiple-tube fermentation by the Colilert and Enterolert methods for detection of waterborne coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli, and enterococci used in drinking and bathing water quality monitoring in southern Sweden. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 64(8), 3079-83. 93 Fattal, B., Peleg-Olevsky, E., Agursky, T. & Shuval, H.I. (1987). The association between seawater pollution as measured by bacterial indicators and morbidity among bathers at Mediterranean bathing beaches of Israel. Chemosphere, 16(2/3), 565-70.
Federal Register. (2002). Effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for the concentrated aquatic animal production point source category; proposed rule. Federal Register 67(177), Proposed Rules, USEPA 40 CFR Part 451, 57872. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAWATER/ 2002/September/Day-i 2/w2 1673 .htm (17 May 2003).
Federal Register. (2001). Guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants; analytical methods for biological pollutants in ambient water; proposed rule, Federal Register, 66(169), Proposed Rules, USEPA 40 CFR 136, 45811
Federal Register. (1998). Water quality standards regulation; proposed rule. Federal Register, 63(129), 36742. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/1998/ July/Day-07/w17513.htm (17 May 2003).
Fleisher, J.M., Kay, D., Salmon, R.L., Jones, F., Wyer, M.D. & Godfree A.F. (1996). Marine waters contaminated with domestic sewage: non enteric illnesses associated with bather exposure in the United Kingdom. American Journalof Public Health, 86(9), 1228-34.
Francy, D.S., Myers, D.N. & Metzker, K.D. (1993). Escherichia coli and fecal coliform bacteria as indicatorsofrecreational water quality. Water-Resource Investigation Report 93-4083. US Dept of Interior, US Geological Survey.
Fricker, E.J. & Fricker, C.R. (1996). Use of defined substrate technology and a novel procedure for estimating the numbers of enterococci in water. Journalof Microbiological Methods, 27, 207-10.
Fujioka, R.S. (2001). Monitoring coastal marine waters for spore-forming bacteria of faecal and soil origin to determine point from non-point source pollution. Water Science & Technology, 47(7), 18 1-88.
Gallob, J. (2002). Some Otter Rock septic systems failing. Newport News-Times. August 7, 2002. Newport, OR.
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental Managers. (1990). Recommended standards for bathing beaches. Health Education Service. Albany, NY Griffin, D.W., Lipp, E.K., McLaughlin, M.R. & Rose, J.B. (2001). Marine recreation and public health microbiology: quest for the ideal indicator. Bioscience, 51(10), 817-26.
Guardabassi, L, Gravesen, J., Lund, C., Bagge, L. & Dalsgaard, A. (2002). Delayed incubation as an alternative method to sample storage for enumeration of E. coli and culturable bacteria in water. Water Research, 36(18), 4655-8.
Haile, R.W., Witte, J.S., Gold, M., Cressey, R., McGee, C., Millikan, R.C., Glasser, A., Harawa, N., Ervin, C., Harmon, P., Harper, J., Dermand, J., Alamillo, J., Barrett, K., Nides, M. & Wang, G. (1999). The health effects of swimming in ocean water contaminated by storm drain runoff. Epidemiology, 10 (4), 35 5-63.
Henrickson, S.E., Wong, T., Allen, P., Ford, T. & Epstein, P.R. (2001). Marine swinrming-related illness: implications for monitoring and environmental policy. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109 (7), 645-51.
Jagals, P. (1996). Stormwater runoff form typical developed and developing South African urban developments: Definitely not for swimming. Water Science and Technology, 35(11-12), 133-40.
Kay, D. & Fleisher, J.M. (1994). Predicting likelihood of gastroenteritis from sea bathing: results from randomized exposure. Lancet, 244(8927), 905-10.
Kennish, M.J. ed. (2001). Practical handbook of marine science.3rdEdition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Kinzelman, J., Ng, C., Jackson, E., Gradus, S. & Bagley, R. (2003). Enterococci as indicators of Lake Michigan recreational water quality: comparison of two methodologies and their impacts on public health regulatory events. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 69(1), 92-6.
Koren, H. & Bisesi, M. (1996). Handbookofenvironmental health and safely Principles and Practices. Volume II. Lewis Publishers.
Kueh, C.S.W., Tam, T.Y., Lee, T., Wong, S.L., Lloyd, O.L., Yu, I.T.S., Wong, T.W., Tam, J.S. & Bassett, D.C.J. (1995). Epidemiological study of swimming- associated illnesses relating to bathing-beach water quality. Water Science & Technology, 31(5-6), 1-4.
Lipp, E.K., Farrah, S.A. & Rose, J.B. (2001). Assessment and impact of microbial fecal pollution and human enteric pathogens in a coastal community. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42(4), 286-93. 95 Mates, A. (1992). Effect of seawater storage on coliforms, faecal coliforms and Escherichia coli. Microbios, 70(282) 43-8.
McDaniels, A.E., Bordner, R.H., Gartside, P.S., Hines, J.R., Brenner, K.P. & Rankin, C.C. (1985). Holding effects on coliform enumeration in drinking water samples. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 50(4), 755-62.
Mugglestone, M.A., Stutt, E.D. & Rushton, L. (2001). Setting microbiological water quality standards for sea bathing-a critical evaluation. Water Science & Technology, 43(12), 9-18.
Narragansett Bay Commission. (2002). Facts & figures, history. The history of sewage treatment in Rhode Island. http://www.nanabay.com/history.asp (3 Apr 2003).
National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration. (2002). Monterrey map. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Monterey/sstmaps/sst2.gif (Sept 2002).
National Resources Defense Council. (2002). Beach bums & buddies. http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/nttw.asp#bumsbuddies (Sep 2002).
Noble, R.T., Moore, D.F., Leecaster, M.K., McGee, C.D. & Weisberg, S.B. (2003). Comparison of total coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococcus bacterial indicator response for ocean recreational water quality testing. Water Research, 37, 1637-1643.
Nuzzi, R. & Burhans, R. (1997). The use of enterococcus and coliform in characterizing bathing-beach waters. Journal of Environmental Health, 60(1), 16-23.
O'Brien, E & Benedict, L. (1997). Chicago historical information. 1849-1855, 1866-1867: early cholera epidemics." Chicago Public Library. http://wwww.chipublib.org/O04chicago/disasters/early_cholera.html (3Apr 2003).
Oregon Administrative Rules. (2001 ed). Oregon Administrative Rules, Department of Environmental Quality, Water Pollution. http://arcweb.sos. state.or.us/ rules/OARS_300/OAR_340/340_04 1 .html (Nov 2002).
Oregon Climate Service. (2003). Zone 1 climate data archives, daily precipitation. http:Ilwww .ocs.orst.edulpub_ftp/climatedata/daily/prec/ (March 2003).
Oregon Department of Agriculture. (2002). Shellfish Program Bacteria Data 1976- 2001. Salem, OR. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002a). Pennitted facilities and 303d streams GIS map application. http://deq 1 2.deq.state.or.us/scripts/ esrimap.dll?name=wql&cmd=map (Nov 2002).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002b). Wastewater permitprogram select waterbody search parameters. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/SISData/ WaterbodySearch2.asp (Sept 2002).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002c). Search DEQ's 2002 303(d) List Database Selection of Search Criteria web page. http://www.deq.state.or.us/ wqIWQLData/ParameterSearcho2.asp (Aug 2002).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002d). Total maximum daily load documents. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/TMDLs/TMDLs.htm (Aug 2002).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002e). Bacteria water quality data, 1976-2001. Portland, OR.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2002). Oregon coast beach monitoring quality assurance plan. Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2001). Laboratory methodof operations manual. Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (15 Aug 2001). Bacteria criteria revision, beneficial uses, shellfish & water contact recreation, OAR 340-41. http://www.deq. state.or.us/wq/303dlistfbacteriacriteriarev.pdf (25 May 2003).
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2000). Oregon's 2000 water quality status assessment report section 305(b) report. Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (1998). Laboratory quality assurance manual. Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Human Services. (2003). DHS news release: Sampling of beach-water quality to start this summer. http://www.dhs.state.or.us/news/ 2003news/2003-0424.html (13 May 2003).
Oregon Environmental Quality Commission. (2001). Oregon Administrative Rules, Water Pollution, OAR 340-041. Oregon Secretary of State, Salem, OR.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. (2001a). Oregon State Parks and Recreation: visiting state parks-find a park. http://www.oregonstateparks.org/ searchpark.php (8 July 2002). Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. (2001b). Oregon State Park camping attendance and day-use visitors. July 2000-2001. Salem, OR.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. (1998). Oregon State Park visitorsurvey. Salem, OR.
Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority. (2003). History. first and second century. http://www.pgh2o.com/history.html (3Apr 2003).
Prieto, M.D., Lopez, B., Juanes, J.A., Revilla, J.A., Llorca, J. & Delgado- Rodriguez, M. (2001). Recreation in coastal waters: health risks associated with bathing in sea water. Journal Epidemiology & Community Health, 55, 442-7.
Pontius, Frederick W. and Stephen W. Clark. (1999). Chapter 1, Drinking water quality standards, regulations and goals. Water Quality and Treatment. Fifth Edition. American Water Works Association. Ed. Raymond D. Letterman. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Pruss A. (1998). Review of epidemiological studies on health effects from exposure to recreational water. International JournalofEpidemiology, 27, 1-9.
Public Health Laboratory Service. (1955). The effect of storageon the coliform and bacterium coli counts of water samples. JournalofHygiene, 53, 559-57 1.
Rose, J.B., Atlas, R.M., Gerba, C.P., Gilchrist, M.J.R.,. LeChevallier, M.W., Sobsey, M.D., Yates, M.V., Cassell, G.H. & Tiedje, J.M. (1999). Microbial pollutants in our nation's water: environmental and public health issues. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.
Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services. (2002). Ocean monitoring program: sampling analysis plan. Santa Barbara, CA.
Schiff, K.C., Weisberg, S.B. & Dorsey, J.H. (2001). Microbiological monitoring of marine recreational waters in southern California. Environmental Management, 27(1), 149-57.
Schneider, L. (2002). Draft-beach environmental assessment, communication, and health [BEACH) program guidance. Department of Ecology, WA.
Shannon & Wilson. (2002). Recreational beachsurvey. Fairbanks, Alaska. Shelby, B. & Tokarczyk, J. (2002). Oregon shore recreational use study. Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept. Salem, OR. http://www.prd. state.or.us/images/ pdf/osmp_beach_study.pdf (Sept 2002).
Sheldon, H., ed. (1988). Boyd's introduction to the study of disease. 10th Edition. Lea & Febiger. Philadelphia, PA.
Stevenson, A.H. (1953). Studies of bathing water quality and health. American Journal of Public Health Association, 43, 529-38.
Surfrider. (2002). Beach bacteria data 1999-2002. Surfrider Foundation, Oregon Chapter. Lincoln City, OR.
Telford S.R., III. (1996). Annotation: Marine waters and nonenteric illness matching the degree of analytical rigor to the biology of the infectious process. American Journal of Public Health: 86(9), 1203-4
TopoZone. (2002). The webs topographic map. http://www.topozone.com (Sept 2002).
Turbow, D.J., Osgood, N.D. & Jiang, S.C. (2003). Evaluation of recreational health risk in coastal waters based on enterococcus densities and bathing patterns. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(4), 598-603.
United States Census Bureau. (2000). State & county quickfacts-Oregon. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/4 1000.html (06 Sep 2002).
United States Department of Interior. (1984-1986). Coastal Oregon quadrangle maps. United States Geological Survey.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2002a). implementation guidance for ambient water qualily criteria for bacteria. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-823-B-02-003.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2002b). National beach guidance and required performance criteria for grants. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-823-B -02-004.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Draft-national beach guidance and performance criteria for recreation waters. Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 823-R-01-005. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2000) The history of drinking water treatment. Office of Water, EPA-8 16-F-00-006. http://www .epa.gov/ ogwdw000/consumer/hist.pdf (3Apr 2003).
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Action plan for beaches and recreational waters. Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 600-R-98/079.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). 25years of the Safe Drinking Water Act: history and trends. Office of Water EPA 816-R-99-007.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). Wateron tap: a consumer's guide to the nation's drinking water. Office of Water. Washington, DC EPA-8 1 5-K-97-002.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1986). Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria 1986. Office of Research and Development, Microbiology and Toxicology Division and Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC. EPA 440-5-84-002.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1978). Microbiological methods for monitoring the environment water and wastes. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600-8-78-0 17.
Western Regional Climate Center. (2002). Oregon climate summaries. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/c1imsmor.html (Oct & Nov 2002).
Zanetell, B.A. (2003). Legislative update: EPA aquaculture effluent limitation comments. Fisheries, 28(1), 7.